Editorial Policy

This page explains exactly how an article gets onto the PixelMatch Blog — what we use for sources, how we draft and check claims, what gets published versus rejected, and how we handle mistakes.

Sourcing

Every factual claim in a PixelMatch article must trace to one of three source types:

• Official platform documentation — Amazon Seller Central help, Shopify Help Center, Etsy Seller Handbook, TikTok Shop Academy, Meta/Google Ads policies. These are the canonical truth for image specs, listing rules, and policy.
• First-party tool documentation — official docs from the AI image tools we compare (PhotoRoom, Canva, Stability, Booth.ai, etc.) for feature claims and pricing.
• Verifiable third-party reporting — major ecommerce publications (Modern Retail, RetailDive, eCommerce Times), Reddit's established seller subs (r/FulfillmentByAmazon, r/EtsySellers, r/shopify), and Trustpilot/G2 review aggregates.

How content is produced

PixelMatch articles are AI-assisted and human-reviewed. We use this clearly to keep readers and Google informed:

1. Our keyword selector picks topics from a pool of seller-search queries and prioritizes ones with verifiable data.
2. An outline agent (Gemini 3.1) drafts the structure using Google Search grounding — every section must cite at least one source URL.
3. A writer agent expands each section to prose, with strict noun- binding (named tools/platforms must come from the cited source, not be invented).
4. A QA agent scores the draft on six dimensions, including hard factual-accuracy gating (any unverifiable proper noun = automatic reject).
5. Only articles scoring ≥ 6.0/10 publish; articles scoring 6.0-7.5 publish with an "Editorial note" tier label; articles scoring < 6.0 are kept off the public site (noindex + excluded from sitemap).

We don't hide that AI is in the loop. Google's documented guidance is that AI-assisted content is fine if it's useful, original, and transparently produced. We aim for all three. The reverse — pretending AI isn't involved — is the trust-loss risk we explicitly avoid.

Tier labels you'll see on articles

• (no label) — qa_score ≥ 7.5. Confident publication.
• Editorial note — qa_score 6.0-7.5. Published, but we flag the score-band so you can calibrate trust.
• noindex — qa_score < 6.0. Page exists for completeness but is not promoted to Google.

Independence + conflicts of interest

PixelMatch (the SaaS product) is the operator of this blog. We do mention PixelMatch in articles about AI product photography because that's our product category and our team has direct experience. We mark this transparently in two ways:

• Every tool-comparison article that includes PixelMatch among the compared tools states this disclosure inline.
• When we recommend physical seller equipment (cameras, lights, backdrops, etc.) we link via Amazon Associates and tag the link as rel="sponsored noopener nofollow". Recommendations are independent — see our Affiliate Disclosure.

Corrections

We make mistakes. When you find one, email admin@sunaofe.com (the operator inbox — yes, PixelMatch is run by the same operator as Sunaofe, our ergonomic-furniture brand) with the article URL and what's wrong. We respond within 3 business days. Material corrections (factual error, broken affiliate link, outdated spec) get a "Corrected on YYYY-MM-DD" line at the top of the affected article.

What we don't do

• We don't sell access to listing positions in our tool comparisons.
• We don't accept "sponsored review" payments. If we like a tool, we say so; if we don't, we say that too.
• We don't republish vendor press releases as if they were our own reporting.
• We don't use clickbait headlines. The title must accurately describe what's in the article.

Contact

Corrections, complaints, partnership inquiries: admin@sunaofe.com. Anything that needs an immediate response: include the word "correction" in the subject line.