Editorial policy

Last updated: 22 September 2026 · Publisher: CLEAN KLASS s.r.o. · Responsible editor: James Gray

This page explains who writes this site, how we establish what we publish, how we are paid, what we refuse to do, and how to get something corrected. It is written to be held against us.

1. Who writes here

Editorial responsibility for zlatavor.online rests with James Gray, director of publication and responsible editor for CLEAN KLASS s.r.o.. Articles carry a named byline and a publication date, and are reviewed before publication. Where an article is substantially revised, the revision is noted on the page.

We do not publish anonymous articles. We do not publish under invented author names or invented credentials. We do not use fabricated author biographies, invented job titles or stock portrait photographs to make an author look like someone they are not.

2. How facts are established

Our working rules, in order of priority:

Primary sources first. For a regulatory matter, the regulator's own publication. For a corporate fact, the company's own filings or statements. For product features, the vendor's current documentation.
Named sources. Every load-bearing factual claim can be traced to a source named in the article. Articles carry a sources section.
No orphan numbers. We do not publish a statistic, a test score, a detection rate, a user count or a price without being able to say where it comes from and when it was measured. If we cannot source it, it does not appear — we would rather have a gap than a figure we cannot stand behind.
Hedge what is uncertain. Where evidence is mixed or a claim is a vendor's assertion rather than an established fact, we say so in the text, in those words.
Distinguish fact from judgement. “This product includes X” is checkable. “This product is worth the money” is an opinion, and is written as one.
Date everything. Software changes. A page without a date is a page you cannot evaluate.

3. How this site is funded

zlatavor.online is funded entirely by affiliate commission. When a reader follows a partner link and buys from the seller, the seller pays us a percentage. The reader pays the standard price; there is no surcharge and no markup.

We take no payment for coverage, no payment for a favourable conclusion, and no payment for placement in a ranking. We publish no sponsored articles, no advertorials written by a brand, and no copy supplied by a vendor or an agency. We do not accept money to remove or soften criticism. If any of that ever changed, this page would say so before the article appeared.

Every commercial link is labelled “partner link” where it appears, carries a note stating that we earn a commission and that it costs the reader nothing extra, and is preceded on the page by a disclosure. Full detail is in the advertising disclosure.

4. Independence from advertisers

The commercial relationship plays no part in the editorial conclusion. In practice that means three specific commitments:

We publish material adverse to a partner brand when it is relevant and sourced. The article on this site about Avast reports the 2024 United States Federal Trade Commission settlement over the sale of browsing data, because a reader deciding whether to trust a security vendor needs it.
We tell readers when a free alternative is adequate. The same article says that Microsoft Defender is the baseline a paid product must beat, and identifies the readers for whom a paid product is probably unnecessary.
No partner sees an article before publication, and no partner has approval, veto or review rights over anything on this site.

5. What we refuse to publish

These are absolute, not aspirational:

Fabricated testimonials. No invented reader stories, no “reader-submitted experiences” written in-house, no composite or imaginary customers, no purchased reviews. We publish no testimonials at all rather than risk this.
Invented ratings. No star ratings, scores out of ten or “editor's choice” badges that are not the output of a stated method. We publish none, because we do not run a testing laboratory. We point to laboratories that do.
Borrowed test scores. No laboratory figure without its source, its date and its methodology attached.
Artificial urgency. No countdown timers, no “offer ends tonight”, no false scarcity, no “only 3 licences left”, no fake stock counters. Prices and offers are the seller's, and we do not dramatise them.
Guaranteed outcomes. No claim that any product makes a reader safe, immune, untraceable, anonymous or protected from all threats. No security product can promise that, and saying otherwise is dangerous as well as false.
Manufactured fear. No invented threat statistics, no fake virus warnings, no implication that a reader's device is already infected, no imitation of a system alert.
Impersonation. We do not present this site as a vendor, a news organisation, a government body or a consumer association, and we do not imitate anyone's branding. We are an independent, ad-funded publication and we say so on every page.
Undisclosed commercial links. A commercial link without a disclosure above it is treated as a defect and fixed.

6. Corrections

We will get things wrong. The procedure when we do:

Write to info@zlatavor.online with the page address and what you believe is incorrect. A source helps but is not required.
We acknowledge within five working days.
We check the point against the primary source.
If it is wrong, we correct it on the page, update the “last updated” date, and add a note stating what was changed and when. We do not delete errors silently.
If we conclude the original text was right, we reply explaining why, with the source. You are free to disagree publicly and we will not object.

Substantive corrections — a wrong fact, not a typographical slip — are always disclosed on the page. Requests to remove accurate, sourced, critical information are refused, from readers and from commercial partners alike.

7. Illustrations

Every illustration and diagram on this site is an original SVG file drawn for the article in which it appears. We use no vendor screenshots, no product photography, no third-party logos and no stock imagery. Each diagram carries a title, a description, alternative text and a caption, and the caption states that it is an explanatory model rather than a product specification. Mock interfaces shown in illustrations are clearly identified as invented examples.

8. Review cycle

Commercial pages are re-read on a rolling basis and whenever we learn that a vendor has changed a plan, a price or a feature set materially. The review date appears in the byline. Because vendor information changes faster than we can review it, every commercial page states that the vendor's own current information prevails over ours.

9. Reader data

We hold none. This site collects no personal data, sets no cookies and runs no analytics, so we cannot and do not optimise content against reader behaviour. See the privacy policy and cookie policy.