This policy explains how Solve Tech Today researches, tests, writes, reviews, and updates technical guidance. The goal is simple: readers should be able to tell what a recommendation is based on and use it without being misled about the evidence behind it.
Editorial responsibility
Solve Tech Today is independently published by Nikolas Lamprou, who sets its editorial direction and reviews content published under his name. The site does not present itself as having a larger editorial team than it actually has.
Evidence standards
Technical guidance can be supported in several ways. Articles should use language that accurately reflects the evidence available.
- Personally experienced: Nikolas can truthfully attribute the observation or procedure to his professional or personal experience.
- Hands-on validated: Solve Tech Today reproduced or checked the relevant steps in a stated environment. Where useful, the article should identify the operating system, application version, commands, expected results, and limitations.
- Documentation verified: The guidance is checked against current primary documentation from the relevant vendor, project, standards body, or security authority.
- Editorially researched: The article synthesizes reliable sources and established technical practice but does not claim that every scenario was reproduced locally.
A stable or widely known procedure may be technically accurate without a new laboratory test. In that situation, the article should state the procedure directly or cite its source, not manufacture a personal anecdote or claim “we tested” without a record of that test.
How troubleshooting guides are prepared
- Define the exact symptom and the user affected.
- Separate likely causes before recommending resets or destructive changes.
- Prefer reversible diagnostic steps before broad repairs.
- Check commands, settings, version differences, and safety implications.
- Use primary vendor or project documentation where it materially supports the guidance.
- Add original screenshots, outputs, or test evidence when they improve the reader’s ability to verify the result.
- Explain when a step is unsuitable for managed, corporate, safety-critical, or otherwise restricted devices.
- Verify links, page rendering, metadata, and related internal guidance before publication.
Sources
Primary sources are preferred for technical claims: official product documentation, security advisories, standards, release notes, and vendor support material. Secondary sources may add context, but rewriting another article is not treated as original research. Sources should be linked where they help readers verify a claim or understand a procedure.
Safety and proportionality
Guides should distinguish routine troubleshooting from steps that can remove data, reset configuration, weaken security, interrupt business systems, or violate organizational policy. Potentially destructive actions require clear warnings, prerequisites, and a safer alternative where one exists.
Updates and review
Technology articles are reviewed when software behavior changes, a reader reports a problem, primary documentation changes, or the site identifies an overlap or accuracy issue. A page’s displayed update date should change only when its substantive content has changed. Minor formatting edits are not presented as a fresh technical review.
Commercial independence
Advertising and affiliate relationships do not determine troubleshooting conclusions or product recommendations. Sponsored material, if ever accepted, should be identified clearly and kept distinct from independent editorial conclusions.
Corrections
Readers can report possible errors through the contact information on the About page. Material corrections are handled under the Corrections Policy.