EuroSciCon Guides

EuroSciCon / Guides / How we test

Editorial

How we test

The standards each guide is held to: verified against the live interface, every source fetched and read, and anything undocumented stated as unknown rather than guessed.

By the EuroSciCon Guides team✓ Checked against the live interfaceUpdated

In short

Every guide is checked against the provider's live interface before publishing, every external source is fetched and read rather than assumed, and anything we cannot confirm is stated as unknown rather than guessed at.

The governing principle

A guide is worth publishing when it tells you something the provider's own documentation does not. That is a high bar, and it rules out most of what gets written about email accounts, which is the provider's help page reworded.

The things worth explaining are usually the ones providers deliberately do not document: why a risk check fires for one person and not another, how a scored form weighs a submission, what a limit actually feels like when you hit it. Observed behaviour can be described honestly without pretending to know internal rules.

Verification

  • Claims are checked against the live interface, not against another article. If a menu path has moved, the guide says where it moved to.
  • Every external link is fetched and read before citation. A URL that returns a page is not sufficient; the page has to actually be what the citation says. Sources that have moved are corrected rather than left broken.
  • Provider documentation is linked where it exists. Where it does not, we say the provider has not published it.
  • Numbers are attributed. Storage limits, sending caps and time windows come from the provider and are linked to it.

Saying what we do not know

Several things in this subject are genuinely undocumented, and pretending otherwise is the most common failure in guides like these. Where a provider does not publish its criteria, the honest description is what can be observed from outside, plus an explicit note that the mechanism is not published.

The same applies to advice that works sometimes. Where a widely-shared workaround is unreliable, we say it is unreliable and explain why, rather than presenting it as a solution and letting readers discover the failure rate themselves.

Dates and freshness

Every guide carries a review date, and it means what it says: the page was checked against the live interface on that date. Interfaces change often enough that an undated guide is close to worthless, and a guide dated by publication rather than last review is misleading.

What we cannot do

  • Recover, access or modify any account. Nobody outside the provider can.
  • Explain why one specific account was locked. Providers do not publish that, and anyone claiming to know is guessing.
  • Bypass verification. No method does, and the ones circulating make things worse.

Advertising and editorial independence

These guides carry advertising, which funds the work. Advertisers have no input into subjects, conclusions or recommendations, and no guide is written or altered because of a commercial relationship. Where we recommend one provider over another, that is a judgement from testing.

Corrections

When something is wrong, the page is corrected and the review date updated. Where a correction changes the substance of the advice, it is noted on the page rather than made silently.

About these guidesWho writes them, and what the section is for. All guidesEverything, organised by provider and problem.

Frequently asked questions

How do you verify the information in these guides?
Claims are checked against the provider's live interface rather than against other articles, and every external source is fetched and read before it is cited. A URL that loads is not sufficient; the page has to actually be what the citation claims.
What happens when a provider changes its interface?
The guide is re-checked and updated, and the review date on the page changes. The date shown means the page was verified against the live interface on that day, not merely that it was first published then.
Do advertisers influence what you write?
No. Advertising funds the work, but advertisers have no input into subjects, conclusions or recommendations. Where one provider is described as handling something better than another, that comes from testing.
What do you do when something is genuinely unknown?
We say so. Several mechanisms in this subject are deliberately undocumented by providers, and the honest description is what can be observed from outside plus an explicit note that the criteria are not published.

Why you can trust this guide

  • Independently written. Not affiliated with, endorsed by, or sponsored by any email provider.
  • No credentials collected. Always sign in on any email provider's own pages, never through a third party.
  • Checked against the live interface before publishing, and re-checked when it changes.
  • Last reviewed: .