Updated May 2020
- Mission statement
- Our promise to you
- Ethics Policy
- Diversity Policy
- Who Are We?
- Ownership Structure
- Verification and fact-checking standards
- Actionable feedback
- News article types
- Buyer's Guide articles
- Deals articles
- Review article types
- How we score our reviews
- Old terms no longer used
Pocket-lint's goal is to be unbiased, trusted, and respected. We are an independent publisher founded in 2003 and has had many thousands of products in that time. Our review program is simple but effective: reviewing products in real-world environments, just how you would use them, rather than in a lab, benchmarking.
Our review process starts with a first look at a launch event or a trade show, and then we move to the next stage of the process.
In their field.
- We do not take payment for product reviews. We never have and we never will.
- We select products for the market.
- Our reviews are written by our in-house team or freelance experts in their field
- Our reviews always cover the good and the bad points (pros and cons) of any product, helping you decide if it's the right product for you.
- We will not go out when something does not work.
- Our reviews are balanced. We understand that some products are not for everyone
- If you think we can do it better than we are doing it - let us know - or in the comments, or via the feedback form - and we'll work towards putting it right
Many sites deal with their review in different ways. In the pursuit of clarity, here's how to handle the problem, and how does it relate to Pocket-lint?
We consider these guidelines to be a "living document" that we will continually modify and update on our feedback, from our readers, and from our perceptions of our changing needs.
Our commitment is to produce journalism that is accurate, fair and complete. Our journalists act with honesty, transparency and independence, including from conflicts of interest.
We believe in editorial independence and integrity, and never show any content we produce to their PR representatives prior to publishing.
Diversity is important to Pocket-lint. We do everything we can to seek out various voices, not only in our staff and freelancers, but also the people we interview and feature in the stories we cover. Race, class, generation, gender and geography are all equal in their status at Pocket-lint.
|Pocket-lint diversity report 2020|
|Male (including transgender men)||85%|
|Female (including transgender women)||15%|
|18-29 years old||10%|
|30-39 years old||36%|
|40-49 years old||41%|
|50+ years old||13%|
|Conducted May 2020 on all permanent staff at Pocket-lint and any freelancer who had work published on Pocket-lint between 4 May 2019 - 4 May 2020.|
We respect privacy and your rights to control your personal data. Our principle guidelines are simple. We will be clear about the data we collect and why.
We may change this policy to ensure that you are happy with any changes. By using our website, you're agreeing to be bound by this Policy.
Unless we tell you otherwise, you're dealing with Pocket-lint Limited (the company that publishes Pocket-lint).
Pocket-lint is a registered company incorporated in England and Wales (5237480).
Our postal address is: Pocket-lint Ltd, PO Box 4770, Ascot SL5 5DP, UK.
You can find out who are senior editorial and management team are on our about us page.
You can contact us via our feedback form or our postal address.
Pocket-lint is an independent media company that was founded in 2003. It is funded through advertising, native content and affiliate revenue. The company is privately owned by the Miles family. There are no outside investors.
Pocket-lint has complete editorial independence and our editorial staff and contributors take their roles seriously.
All stories carry an author byline. Paid for promotions will carry a "Pocket-lint Promotion" byline.
You can see a list of current Pocket-lint staff and key contributors on our about us page.
Pocket-lint strives to publish the most accurate information we can, and we take a number of steps to ensure the accuracy of our investigations.
We stand by the journalism we produce and when it is incorrect make every possible way to correcting it. We welcome feedback from our readers and sources regarding the information that we publish. We agree and follow with the Editors' Code of Practice
We are strive to treat sources fairly. This means putting things into perspective and summarising the arguments of people we are recognisably fair and accurate.
At times sources will be asked to remain anonymous, and we will work with them to protect their anonymity in the interest of protecting the professional standing of the source.
All Pocket-lint articles can be updated as soon as possible. Articles may be "updated" to reflect developments in the news cycle. Posts can be "corrected" if there are factual inaccuracies. We believe it is unnecessary to make notes on a story, which is more important than that, to make sure that the story is as complete as possible.
Readers can report factual errors via our feedback form or our postal address.
When we publish erroneous information on social networks, we will endeavour to correct it on that platform.
We believe that public feedback is important. We are committed to engaging with you and taking action based on your suggestions, complaints and other feedback. Whether that's asking you to help us develop an individual story or line of coverage, answer questions that a story may raise, identify related or under-covered issues, and teach us about new and diverse sources, experts and perspectives.
In line with this, we are committed to providing greater transparency about our journalism and offering regular points of contact and interaction. We believe that news organisations have a responsibility to engage with the public on the values, issues and ideas of the day, and that we have much to gain in return.
You can reach our journalists individually via email listed on the articles they write, or via the Feedback form.
There are a number of different articles that fit under the news section. These categories of opinion, opinion pieces, and longer-form features
Our journalists' hands-on first impressions of a product; we've seen the device, touched itThese initial impressions are not always based on a final review.
An in-depth criticism of a product; we have lived with the device, used it extensively over a number of hours, days, weeks, even months. We're pragmatic in our review process instead we are going to live with experience.
In the ever-moving world of tech, product software is becoming an important aspect. The hardware you buy on day one could be better via firmware and new features later in its life. To reflect this, we update reviews, adding additional information, criticism and context. Note, however, we do not degrade original scores (these remain in place, with a "first published" date showing at the base of the verdict for clarity)
Products are rated up to five stars maximum, based on our opinion of the market. Best-of-best 'Editor's Choice' badge is awarded to full-marks product; the 'Recommended' badge is four-and-a-half stars; four stars or less are presented without a badge
When scoring products we look at a number of factors including design, features, usability, performance, value, and most importantly if it does not say what it is
Hands-on / Pictures and hands-on
Some of our older friends may be presented as "hands-on" or "pictures and hands-on". These articles are more akin to the In pictures approach above. we have moved away from these markets as we move forward.
Occasionally we run stories on products we've seen be it a car unveiling, a designer version of a new phone, or similar, such pieces are presented with a small amount of copy, letting the pictures do the talking.