Skip to content

How This Site Checks Things

What the numbers rest on, what a product has to clear, and what I cannot tell you.

By Franco N.·Updated August 4, 2026

The thresholds

  • Minimum to be recommended: 3.9 stars and 50 reviews. Below either, it does not get named
  • Must be in stock and not discontinued at the time of writing, with the date on the page
  • Every measurement carries a source link, or it says on the page that it is unsourced
  • Prices appear as bands, never exact figures. Amazon’s terms forbid stating a price you are not reading live
  • Products are not tested here. No lab, no particle counter, no samples

The short version

Every number on this site is either linked to where it came from or labelled as unsourced. Products get recommended on published specs, seller history and review patterns, not on having used them.

Where a page tells you not to buy something, that is usually costing me money. Those are the parts worth reading.

What I cannot do, said plainly

The best air purifier sites buy the units and measure the output. HouseFresh runs particle counters. AirPurifierFirst names its instrument, a Temtop LKC-1000S, on every review it publishes.

I do none of that. There is no lab here, no test chamber, no shelf of samples. When a page says a purifier covers 200 square feet, that figure comes from the manufacturer, and I have not stood in a 200 square foot room measuring whether it does.

That is a real limitation and it decides what this site is useful for. It is good at questions with published answers: what size fits, what the clearance has to be, which part number belongs to which model, whether a listing is worth trusting. It is not good at how quietly a fan runs, and any page claiming otherwise would be making it up.

The checking pipeline every recommendation passes: the review-count gate, the stock check, and the low-star read, with rejected products leaving the pipeline at each gate candidate product 3.9 stars and 50 reviews, minimum in stock, not discontinued, dated one and two star reviews, read not named not named drawback named named on the page, with its flaw

Where the measurements come from

The dimensions and clearances on this site come from published trade and design references rather than from other blogs. The ones that come up most often are the NKBA kitchen planning guidelines, Dimensions.com, Fine Homebuilding, and manufacturer documentation for specific models.

Two rules go with that. Every figure links to where it came from, and every page carries a sources block at the foot listing them. Where I could not find a source for a number that seemed worth including, the page says so in the text instead of quietly presenting it as fact.

Around twenty figures were removed or relabelled on that basis during a review in August 2026. Some were reworded so the number was not needed. Some were traced to a source and kept. A few are still on the site marked as unsourced, because they are useful and honest labelling beats deletion.

What a product has to clear

The bar is deliberately boring, and it rejects more than it accepts.

Check Threshold Why
Rating 3.9 stars minimum Below this the complaints stop being edge cases
Review count 50 minimum Under 50 you cannot separate a good product from a new listing
Availability In stock, not discontinued Checked on the date printed at the top of the page
Seller Noted either way Shipped by the retailer or by a marketplace reseller changes what happens when it arrives broken
Drawback At least one, named From the two-star reviews, which is where the real fault lives. Consumables excepted, explained below

That last row is the one that does the most work. Every product on this site has a stated flaw. If a listing has genuinely nothing wrong with it, I have not read it carefully enough, and a recommendation with no downside attached reads as advertising because it usually is.

Consumables are the exception, and I will say so on the page when it applies. Filters, mats and cartridges attract very few reviews, because they are bought by people who already own the unit. Several of the genuine AeraMax listings have no one or two star reviews at all, so there is nothing to quote. On those pages the drawback comes from what I can check instead: how much stock is left, who is actually selling it, what the manufacturer documentation says, and whether the genuine part can be bought in the US at all.

Commercial and contract-grade products

The bar above assumes a product people buy one at a time and then review. Office furniture sold through dealers and specifiers does not work that way. A monitor arm that ships by the pallet to a facilities manager will never collect fifty consumer reviews no matter how good it is, so applying that threshold to it does not filter quality, it just filters out an entire category.

So contract-grade products are judged on published evidence instead. To be recommended, one has to clear all of this:

Check Threshold Why
Availability In stock at a named dealer Named on the page, checked on the date printed at the top
Standards The relevant BIFMA standard An independent test the manufacturer had to pass, not a claim it wrote itself
Safety listing UL or equivalent where the product is powered Applies to anything with a motor or a transformer in it
Warranty Stated by the manufacturer, in writing Length and what it covers, both
Drawback At least one, named From the specification sheet, from what the manufacturer declines to state, or from availability. The entry says which

A product recommended this way is labelled on its own page as a contract-grade pick, so you can see which standard it cleared. It is a different test, not a softer one. Consumer reviews tell you what happens after six months in somebody’s house, and no amount of compliance paperwork replaces that. What the paperwork does tell you is that the thing was built to a published standard and that somebody will still answer the phone about it in five years.

Where a product fails this bar, it stays on the site as an explainer with no recommendation attached, and the page says which check it missed.

What gets rejected

A few patterns come up constantly and all of them get passed on.

Perfect ratings on tiny samples. Twelve reviews at five stars tells you nothing. It could be a good product or a new one with helpful friends, and there is no way to tell them apart from the outside.

Famous names with thin listings. A well-known brand carrying 46 reviews and a seven-hundred-dollar price through a third-party seller does not clear the bar just because the name is familiar.

Whole brands sold through one reseller. When every listing for a manufacturer runs through the same marketplace storefront with a handful of reviews each, that is a signal about the channel rather than the product, and the honest answer is to send you somewhere else.

Categories where nothing is good. Task lighting is the clearest example. Hundreds of near-identical listings, a few dozen reviews each, nothing with real evidence behind it. Where that happens the page says the category is weak instead of picking a winner at random.

How this content is made

Google asks publishers whether the use of automation, including AI generation, is self-evident to readers. Here it is.

These pages are researched and drafted with AI assistance, then checked, corrected and edited by me before anything publishes. The research is where it does most of the work: pulling specs, comparing listings, reading through review patterns at a volume I could not do by hand.

What it does not do is decide what gets recommended, and it does not go up unchecked. A review of this site in August 2026 caught four factual errors that had made it into drafts, including a footprint calculation that dropped a clearance and was wrong by more than two feet. Those were found and fixed before publication, which is exactly the argument for a human reading every page rather than trusting the draft.

If you find a number here that looks wrong, it may well be. Tell me and I will check it and either fix it or show you the source.

How this site makes money

Some links here are affiliate links, which means a purchase made through one pays a small commission at no extra cost to you. Pages carrying paid links say so at the top, above the content, rather than burying it in the footer.

Two things that follow from that, and they matter more than the disclosure itself.

Recommendations are not ordered by what pays best. Several pages on this site point you at a retailer that pays less, or at no retailer at all, because that was the right answer. One tells you the machine has a washable filter and therefore no repeat purchases, which is the opposite of what a site funded by repeat purchases wants you to know.

And prices are shown as bands rather than figures. Affiliate programs generally prohibit stating a price you are not reading live, because a stale number is a misleading one. Where you see a range, that is why.

Corrections

Errors get fixed on the page and noted, not quietly overwritten. The August 2026 review corrected a filter replacement interval that had been stated as four years when the correct figure is one, a bench seat count that disagreed between two pages, a recline figure that did not follow from its source, and a toe-kick depth the cited listing did not support.

That list is not there to be reassuring. It is there because a site with no corrections page has either never checked its own work or is not telling you when it was wrong.

Questions

Have you used the products you recommend?
Mostly no, and the pages say so. I ran a contract furniture business until 2020, so the office seating and contract fittings are things I sold and handled. Everything else is assessed from published specs, seller history and review patterns.

Why are there no prices?
Because a price printed on a page is out of date within days, and affiliate terms generally forbid stating one you are not reading live. Bands are honest. Exact figures would not be.

Why does a page sometimes tell me not to buy the thing it is about?
Because that was the answer. It happens most often when a good product only sells through a bad listing.

How current is any of this?
Every page carries a last-updated date at the top and stock was checked on that date. Listings change faster than pages do, so treat anything about availability as of that date rather than as of today.