Editorial Policy

Publisher and Review Responsibility

Grammarlyzer is the publisher responsible for grammar explanations, examples, metadata, and internal-link quality across the learning pages. We do not use invented individual biographies, unverified academic titles, or a fictional team identity to make a page look more authoritative.

The byline Maintained by Grammarlyzer identifies the publisher; it does not assert that a named expert or independent human reviewer approved the page. Automated checks and AI-assisted review are recorded as such. A separate owner review is required before a release record may call a page human-reviewed.

Reference Sources

Public reference links are added directly to curated guides when a usage distinction, exception, or style convention benefits from independent verification. Frequently used public references include Merriam-Webster Grammar & Usage, Purdue OWL, and Cambridge Dictionary Grammar.

A guide may use a subscription reference only when that consultation is actually recorded; a list on this policy page is not evidence for an individual claim. When reputable references disagree, the guide should describe the disagreement instead of presenting a preference as a universal rule.

How Topics Are Selected

How Examples Are Written

Examples should be short enough to scan but specific enough to teach. A useful example normally shows the incorrect form, the corrected form, and the reason the correction works. We prefer practical contexts such as workplace email, school writing, technical documentation, reports, and casual conversation over generic placeholder sentences.

We avoid examples that depend on private personal data, stereotypes, unsafe advice, or a joke that distracts from the rule. When possible, examples include a small real-world signal: a deadline, a report, a class assignment, a product update, a meeting, a citation, or a support message. That extra context helps readers understand why a correction is right.

For confused-word pages, examples should show both the wrong form and the corrected form. For rule pages, examples should show the pattern, the repair, and the reason a second option may or may not work. For hub pages, examples should help the reader choose the next specific article to read.

Review and Accuracy Standards

• Rules are written in plain English and checked against the actual examples on the page.
• Context-dependent issues are labeled as suggestions, preferences, or style choices when the rule is not absolute.
• Pages avoid claims such as reliable accuracy, professional-editing replacement, or absolute writing promises.
• Internal links should help users learn the next useful topic, not repeat unrelated SEO links.
• Metadata, canonical URLs, structured data, sitemap entries, and redirects are validated before release.

Content Review Criteria

How Tool Suggestions Are Treated

The grammar checker provides suggestions. It can help find common issues, but they cannot fully judge audience, intent, citation rules, legal meaning, or company style. Users should review suggestions in context before accepting them.

Published learning content should not simply repeat tool output. If the checker highlights a sentence, the article should explain the rule in human terms, show why the correction works, and identify cases where the suggestion may not apply. This keeps the Learn section educational rather than a list of automated messages.

Corrections and Updates

If a page is unclear or wrong, we update the explanation, examples, related links, or metadata. To report an issue, send the URL, the sentence or section, and the reason it looks incorrect through the contact page. We also review older pages for thin explanations, repeated examples, outdated claims, and weak links to the checker workflow.

Updates may include expanding a thin article, adding a missing FAQ, replacing generic examples, correcting a schema date, removing stale claims, or keeping a weak page noindex until it can be rewritten. We prefer fewer indexable pages with stronger explanations over a large surface of thin pages.

Advertising and Independence

Grammarlyzer may display advertising to support the free checker. Ads do not determine grammar rules, example choices, article conclusions, or whether a page is corrected. Advertising and analytics disclosures are maintained in the privacy policy.

Correction Workflow

When a correction request arrives, we first identify whether the issue is factual, stylistic, contextual, technical, or only a preference. Factual grammar errors and broken links are fixed directly. Context-sensitive issues are rewritten to explain the condition more clearly, especially when a rule depends on audience, dialect, citation style, or formal register.

We do not claim individual academic credentials on pages unless they can be stated plainly and verified. The site presents practical grammar guidance, not legal, academic, immigration, medical, or professional editing advice.

How Content Is Created (Human and AI)

Drafting, research, and quality checks may use AI-assisted tools. Automated validation can confirm structure, link integrity, metadata, and a recorded test result, but it does not count as human review. Where owner review has not been documented, the release inventory labels the page OWNER REVIEW REQUIRED.

Checker output is not automatic editorial authority for a learning page. A recorded engine example supports only the exact input, output, environment, and date in that record. Rules, limitations, and source links still require editorial verification.

How Ads Are Kept Separate

Advertising support does not influence the answer on a grammar page, the examples chosen for a lesson, or whether a correction is accepted. Ads and analytics are disclosed through the privacy policy. Ads do not appear on our demo or utility pages.