Editorial policy
Editorial Standards
External sites can reveal what people want to know. They do not decide what is true. Published guidance is independently researched and written from evidence relevant to the page's specific intent.
Demand is not evidence
Search suggestions, community discussions, and external plant websites may help identify a question or the words people use. Factual claims must be checked independently against appropriate sources before they are eligible for publication.
Evidence and sources
Research prioritizes university extension services, government resources, botanical gardens, the Royal Horticultural Society, universities, and other institutional horticultural references. Sources shown on a page are the references used for factual verification, not merely the places where a topic was discovered.
Originality
The site does not publish copied, translated, or lightly rewritten external articles. Topic discovery is followed by English intent validation, canonical intent checks, independent evidence research, and an original brief before content can enter production.
- No complete external articles or FAQs are stored for reuse.
- Community content is not the sole evidence for safety, toxicity, diagnosis, treatment, or scientific classification.
- Overlapping expressions are merged when they represent the same search intent rather than turned into duplicate pages.
Accuracy and maintenance
Guidance is framed around observable signals and practical decisions. Changes should preserve the documented intent, relationships, and source trail. Dates are displayed only when a reliable content date exists; build time is not presented as an editorial update.