We publish a lot of content, in three languages, about a subject where bad information does real harm. This page sets out how that content is produced and what we will not do. We would rather be held to a published standard than ask for trust.
How articles are planned
Topics come from keyword research, from questions clients and customers actually ask, and from gaps we see in what currently ranks. Each article is mapped to one primary search intent and one URL, so that two of our own articles do not compete for the same query.
Language is assigned by where the demand actually is, not by translating one master article into three. Most informational demand in Indian wellness is in Hindi and Hinglish, and those articles are written natively in those registers rather than translated.
What we will not publish
Claims that a product or herb cures, treats or prevents a disease. Specific outcome promises. Content that shames a reader about their body, their fertility, their weight or their condition. Fabricated statistics or invented research citations. Fake reviews, fake testimonials or invented case studies.
We also will not publish content whose only purpose is to carry a keyword. If an article does not help the reader with something, it does not go up, regardless of what the search volume looks like.
Review before publication
Health, nutraceutical and Ayurveda content is reviewed for factual accuracy and for claims compliance before publication. Hindi and Hinglish articles are additionally reviewed by a native reader of that register, because a technically correct translation can still read badly.
Articles are published in measured batches rather than all at once, so that crawl, indexing and reader behaviour can be observed and the approach corrected. Publishing several hundred articles simultaneously is a good way to produce several hundred thin pages.
Sources and citations
Where we reference regulatory requirements we cite the relevant authority. Where we reference traditional use we say that it is traditional use rather than implying clinical evidence. Where research exists we describe what it actually looked at, including the duration, a study over twelve weeks does not support a claim about one week.
Where we do not know something, we say so. "The evidence here is thin" is a legitimate sentence and we use it.
Corrections and updates
If we get something wrong, we correct it on the page rather than quietly deleting it. Articles are reviewed and updated as evidence changes, as regulations change and as search behaviour shifts.
If you find an error, write to REPLACE_EDITORIAL_EMAIL. We would genuinely rather know.