This policy explains what Let's Buzz Media will claim, what we will not claim, how sources are selected, how evidence is labelled, and how we correct the record when new information changes an earlier conclusion. The purpose is accountability.
These are standards that published content should be capable of being checked against.
Our editorial purpose
Let's Buzz Media exists to help readers understand and apply Local SEO more carefully. We will prioritise:
- usefulness to the reader over publishing volume;
- clear separation between fact, interpretation and observation;
- first-party documentation where a platform publishes the answer;
- practical explanations that ordinary business owners can follow;
- transparent limitations where evidence is weak;
- real business evidence rather than manufactured examples presented as experience.
We will not make an article longer simply to target more keyword variations. Each page has a defined purpose and should link to the page that owns a related specialist question rather than reproducing it in full.
How we classify claims
Where a distinction matters, Let's Buzz Media uses four evidence labels.
Google confirms
Use this label when a statement is explicitly supported by current Google documentation or another authoritative first-party source relevant to the platform or technical standard being discussed. The wording should stay close to what the source actually establishes.
If Google documents a feature or policy but does not disclose how strongly it affects ranking, we will not extend the source into a ranking claim.
Industry evidence
Use this label for reputable independent research, testing or reasonably established practitioner evidence that is useful but is not an official Google statement. Industry evidence can be strong without being definitive.
We should state what was tested, the limitations that matter and whether the evidence is broadly consistent or contested.
Our observation
Use this label for something genuinely documented through the live case study or another first-hand project record. An observation should be tied to the business, time period and measurement method.
It should not be silently generalised into a universal rule.
Not established
Use this label when there is insufficient evidence for a definite conclusion. This category is important.
If Google does not disclose a mechanism, industry evidence is mixed, or the live project cannot isolate the effect of a change, the correct editorial response may be to leave the conclusion open.
Source standards
Our source choice should match the type of claim being made.
1. Primary platform documentation first
For Google Business Profile rules, eligibility, feature behaviour and published Local SEO guidance, we will look for current Google documentation before using a third-party summary. For search and technical implementation, official Search documentation should be preferred where it answers the question directly.
2. Technical standards where appropriate
When the subject is a technical standard rather than a Google policy, the relevant primary standard should be used. Schema.org is an example for structured-data vocabulary, alongside current search-engine documentation explaining supported use.
3. First-party data and research
Original research from a tool provider, platform, publisher or practitioner may be valuable when the methodology and sample are visible enough to evaluate.
4. Reputable practitioner research
Independent testing and practitioner analysis can help answer questions that platforms do not disclose. We will label this as industry evidence rather than presenting it as platform-confirmed fact.
5. Our documented observations
Case-study data can show what happened in a specific business under specific conditions. It belongs below official documentation when the question is about a platform rule, but it can be the most relevant evidence when the question is what happened in the live project.
6. Anecdote as context, not proof
Anecdotal experience may help generate a question or explain a possible pattern. It should not be presented as established evidence simply because several people repeat it.
We will not cite a copied summary when the primary source is available and practical to use.
Case-study reporting rules
The live case study is central to Let's Buzz Media, which makes its reporting standards especially important. We will:
- record important dates and the starting state where it can be reconstructed reliably;
- distinguish work completed before formal measurement from work measured from a defined baseline;
- document material changes that could affect interpretation;
- report real outcomes only when the source and time period are known;
- preserve neutral and negative findings rather than removing them because they are inconvenient;
- keep private customer information out of the case study unless there is a clear editorial reason and permission to publish it;
- state limitations and confounding factors when several changes happen close together.
We will not:
- invent ranking changes, traffic, leads, enquiries, revenue, review counts or experiments;
- manufacture a suspension, fake-review attack, competitor problem or other event to create a more dramatic story;
- create fake "before and after" evidence;
- imply that a result was caused by one change when the evidence only shows that both happened around the same time.
For example, if a review is received during the same period as website changes and a ranking movement, it would be unacceptable to write that the review caused the ranking change unless the evidence genuinely supports that conclusion. An acceptable statement would describe the timing, the other changes and the uncertainty.
The Methodology explains how these observations are evaluated in more detail. The case-study hub explains how the project record is organised.
AI-assisted content
AI tools may be used to assist parts of the editorial workflow. That may include:
- organising research notes;
- generating questions or alternative structures;
- producing an initial draft from an approved brief;
- editing for clarity and consistency;
- helping create tables, checklists or summaries;
- identifying areas that require verification.
AI assistance does not remove human responsibility. A human editor remains accountable for the accuracy, originality, evidence classification, internal links, final wording and publication decision.
AI must not be used to fabricate first-hand experience. We will not use it to invent customers, quotes, reviews, photographs, jobs, rankings, data, experiments or business results.
We will not use AI as a reason to mass-produce near-duplicate local pages. A city or town name is not enough to make a page useful or distinct.
Where AI helps create a page, the final content must still meet the same evidence and editorial standards as content drafted without AI.
Commercial independence and disclosure
Let's Buzz Media is currently positioned as an educational Local SEO resource, not an agency sales site. If the commercial model changes, the editorial policy should be updated so readers can understand the relationship between content and revenue.
If the site later uses affiliate links, sponsorships, free products, paid placements or other relevant commercial relationships, those relationships must be disclosed clearly where they could affect how a reader interprets the content. Editorial conclusions cannot be purchased.
A commercial relationship does not allow a sponsor, affiliate partner or tool provider to dictate an evidence conclusion. If a recommended product or service has a commercial relationship with Let's Buzz Media, that relationship should be visible to the reader before or close to the recommendation.
Corrections and substantive updates
Material errors should be corrected promptly once they have been verified. If you believe a page contains an error, use the Contact page and include the page URL, the statement you believe is wrong and the best primary source you have, where possible.
We will distinguish between routine edits and substantive reviews. A last reviewed or last updated date should only change when meaningful editorial work has taken place.
Correcting a spelling mistake or adjusting formatting is not a reason to make an old article appear newly reviewed. When a major conclusion changes, the update should be transparent where that history is useful.
We should not quietly rewrite the past in a way that makes later knowledge look inevitable. For time-sensitive platform guidance, source dates should be checked again before a substantive republishing or review.
What we will not publish
Let's Buzz Media will not publish:
- guaranteed ranking claims;
- fake or embellished case studies;
- unverified platform rumours presented as confirmed fact;
- mass-generated geographic pages that add no distinct user value;
- fabricated customers, reviews, photographs or first-hand experience;
- tactics that depend on review manipulation or link manipulation that breaches relevant platform policies;
- unsupported claims that a particular schema type, keyword placement, review pattern or isolated tactic guarantees Local SEO performance.
This does not mean controversial subjects are avoided. It means the evidence and uncertainty must be made visible.
Questions about this policy
For questions about how a claim is researched, read the Methodology. For who is responsible for the site and why it exists, read About Let's Buzz Media.
For a correction, source suggestion or editorial question, use Contact.