This page explains what our articles are based on, how we decide what to recommend, and what our commercial relationships do and do not affect. It is a description of how we actually work, not a statement of intent.
1. What our reviews are based on
Loupe publishes research-based comparisons and buying guides. Our articles draw on:
- Manufacturer specifications and technical documentation
- Campaign pages, updates, and fulfilment history
- Publicly available buyer and backer feedback
- Warranty, return, and support terms
- Pricing across the product’s available channels
Unless an article explicitly states otherwise, we have not physically handled the product. Where we say something about a product, it is sourced, or it is labelled as an opinion or an inference.
We do not:
- Claim hands-on testing, laboratory measurement, or long-term use that we have not performed
- Present a manufacturer’s claim as an independently verified fact
- Publish invented user testimonials or reviews
- Publish articles under fictional author names, credentials, or photographs
If we obtain a product directly from a brand, or receive one at no cost, that is stated in the article.
2. How products are ranked
Where an article ranks or orders products, the ranking is produced from criteria published on that page. The criteria we use are drawn from the following, and each ranking page states which ones apply and how they are weighted:
| Criterion | What it measures |
|---|---|
| Delivery record | Whether the maker has shipped previous products, and how close to schedule |
| Specification fit | How well the product’s stated specifications match the use case the article is about |
| Price and total cost | Price against comparable products, including shipping, duties, and consumables |
| Warranty and support | Length and terms of warranty, return window, and availability of support |
| Backer and buyer volume | How much real-world feedback exists, as a measure of how much is actually known |
Ranking position is never sold. A brand cannot pay to appear higher, and commission rates are not an input to any ranking. Commission rates in this category are generally higher for newer brands than for established ones, which is exactly why we keep the two separate: ranking by commission would systematically push newer and less proven products to the top.
Where a list reflects our judgement rather than a measurable criterion, it is labelled “Editor’s Picks” and presented as opinion.
3. Language we avoid
Some words carry an implicit claim we cannot support, so we do not use them as unqualified descriptions of this site:
- We do not describe Loupe as independent, unbiased, or objective without qualification. We are compensated through affiliate links, and readers are entitled to weigh that.
- We do not use hedges — may help, promising, studies suggest — to make a claim we could not make directly.
4. Health, safety, and medical claims
Loupe does not provide medical advice. We do not state or imply that any product diagnoses, treats, cures, mitigates, or prevents any disease.
For products in sleep, recovery, and wellbeing categories, we describe what the product is, what the maker claims, and what is known about it — and we distinguish those three clearly. Anything relating to a medical condition is a matter for a qualified healthcare professional, not this site.
5. Commercial relationships
Loupe earns commissions on qualifying purchases made through links on this site. See our Affiliate Disclosure for the full description.
Beyond affiliate commissions:
- We do not sell coverage. Being written about is not something a brand can buy.
- Sponsored or paid placements, if we ever publish them, are labelled as advertising at the top of the item, and are not presented as editorial recommendations.
- Ownership interests. Where Loupe, its publisher, or an affiliated company has an ownership or commercial interest in a product beyond an affiliate commission, that relationship is stated in the article itself. We do not present coverage of our own or affiliated products as independent review.
6. Sources
Where we rely on a specific external source — a manufacturer specification, a fulfilment update, a standards document — we link to it. Where a figure comes from the maker rather than from an independent source, we attribute it to the maker.
We link only to sources we have confirmed exist and say what we report them as saying.
7. Corrections
If something on this site is wrong, we want to fix it.
Write to info@readloupe.com with the page and what is incorrect. We aim to respond within 3 business days.
- Factual errors are corrected, and a dated correction note is added to the page.
- Material corrections — ones that change a recommendation or a ranking — are noted at the top of the article.
- Silent edits. Routine updates (price changes, availability, new models) are made without a correction note, but the page’s “last updated” date changes.
We do not remove or alter an article because a brand is unhappy with it. We do correct it if it is wrong.
8. Authorship
Articles are published under the byline Loupe Editorial Team. Loupe is a small operation and we publish under a single editorial identity rather than inventing individual author personas.
We use software assistance, including AI tools, in research and drafting. Every article is reviewed by a member of our editorial team before publication, and we are responsible for everything we publish.
9. Reader feedback
If you have bought a product we covered and your experience differs from what we wrote, tell us: info@readloupe.com. That information is more useful to us than anything a maker sends.