(Pocket-lint) - Updated July 2020
- Mission statement
- Our promise to you
- The Trust Project
- Ethics Policy
- Diversity Policy
- Diversity Staffing
- Who Are We?
- Ownership Structure
- Verification and fact-checking standards
- Actionable feedback
- News article types
- Buyers' Guide and Analysis 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 here to inform and entertain on the tech that matters.
We are an independent publisher founded in 2003 and have seen and written about thousands of products during 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 until the product is fully reviewed.
- 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 of 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.
- 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 - via the feedback form - and we'll work towards putting it right.
Many sites deal with their reviews and news in different ways. In the pursuit of clarity, we've detailed the different types of work we write and publish on the site below.
The Trust Project, led by journalist Sally Lehrman, is a consortium of news companies building transparency standards that allow readers to easily assess the quality and credibility of journalism online.
Pocket-lint has been a member of The Trust Project since September 2020.
The project includes more than 200 news outlets, including The Washington Post, The Economist, The Denver Post, The Globe and Mail (Toronto), Frontline (PBS), the BBC, Sky News, the Bay Area News Group, The Toronto Star, Mic, Hearst Television, the South China Morning Post, Italy’s La Repubblica and La Stampa, Spain’s El Pais and Cambio 16, Germany’s Deutsche Presse-Agentur and Greece’s Kathimerini.
In order to join the Trust Project, news outlets must go through a rigorous approval and compliance process. Digital platforms, including Google, Facebook and Bing, use the Trust Indicators and the machine-readable signals associated with them to more easily surface, display or label trustworthy news to their users.
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 before publishing.
We agree and follow with the Editors' Code of Practice.
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 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 our 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. As an example, Pocket-lint earns from qualifying purchases as an Amazon Associate.
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 several steps to ensure the accuracy of our investigations. We invite companies to comment on rumour stories and using our journalistic knowledge and experience, evaluate rumours when they appear. We also never publish unsubstantiated rumours without verifying the sources and declaring if it's a source we're not familiar with.
For reviews, we stringently test all products in real-life situations rather than in a lab. Our reviewers are experts in their field having, in some cases, covered the industry for over 20 years. Every review is peer-reviewed by either the Reviews editor or another member of the team to ensure we've answered all the relevant questions for the device.
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 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 ask to remain anonymous, and we will work with them to protect their anonymity in the interest of protecting the professional standing of the source.
We use "Via" to clarify that we discovered that story on another publication.
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. If a story is factually incorrect and has been corrected we will add a correction to the bottom of the article for readers to see.
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.
There are a number of different articles that fit under the news section. These include general news articles, factual news, opinion, analysis, explainers, promotions, shopping, and rumours.
Our journalists' hands-on first impressions of a product; we've seen the device, touched it. These 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.
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 products; 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 what it claims to do.
Hands-on / Pictures and hands-on
Some of our older articles may be presented as "hands-on" or "pictures and hands-on".
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.