01 About this document
What it covers and who it binds.
BitResQ publishes practical content about email backup, recovery and migration, and about rescuing data from corrupt or inaccessible files. Our readers usually arrive mid-problem - a mailbox that will not open, a drive that is no longer recognised, a migration that stalled halfway. They are looking for an answer they can trust on the first try.
These standards exist to make sure that trust is earned. They describe how we research, test, write, review and maintain our content, and the quality bar each piece must clear before it goes live. Where this document and any older internal guidance disagree, this document wins.
02 Our editorial mission
Be the clearest, most accurate help our readers can find.
Our goal is simple to state and hard to earn: to be the most reliable, genuinely useful resource for anyone dealing with lost, corrupt or stranded data. We pair hands-on testing on real builds and real files with plain writing that respects the reader's time and intelligence - whether they are a first-time home user or an administrator migrating thousands of mailboxes.
03 Who we write for
We calibrate every article to a real reader.
Our content is written to be approachable for non-technical readers while staying precise enough for professionals. Knowing exactly who is on the other side of the screen is part of writing well.
| Reader | What they need |
|---|---|
| Home & individual users | Recovering personal emails, attachments and mailbox files after accidental deletion, corruption or a failed account move. |
| IT administrators | Server mailboxes, Exchange and Microsoft 365 migration, bulk backup and recovery across many accounts at once. |
| Businesses & SMBs | Business continuity, scheduled mailbox backup, and getting critical correspondence back fast when something breaks. |
| Forensics & legal teams | Preserving, exporting and examining email evidence in defensible, original-format ways. |
04 Editorial principles
The non-negotiables every author works to.
Accuracy above all
Every technical claim is verified by direct testing, official documentation or a confirmed expert. If we cannot stand behind a statement, it does not get published.
Real, usable help
A guide should solve the reader's problem end to end, without sending them off to three other pages to fill in the gaps we left.
Plain language
Jargon is explained, acronyms are spelled out on first use, and we never hide behind complexity to look clever.
Original screenshots
Visuals are captured in our own test environments on the actual software and operating system versions, and refreshed when interfaces change.
Honest about risk
When a step can overwrite data, void a warranty, or needs professional help, we say so clearly and up front - not in a footnote.
No pay-for-praise
Rankings and recommendations reflect testing outcomes only. Commercial relationships never buy a better review, and any affiliation is disclosed.
05 How we create content
From a blank page to a published guide.
Research & scope
The author defines the exact problem, the reader, and the supported software and OS versions, then gathers official references before writing a line.
Hands-on testing
Every procedure is performed on real files and real builds in our test environment. Steps that cannot be reproduced are not written as fact.
Draft & self-check
The draft is written with original screenshots and run against this standards checklist before it is ever submitted.
Editorial review
An editor checks structure, clarity, completeness and brand voice, and confirms the piece actually answers the question it promises to.
Technical verification
A second reviewer re-runs the critical steps, confirms screenshots match the current interface, and flags anything that could put a reader's data at risk.
Approval & publish
The article is signed off by our editorial reviewer, then published with correct metadata, internal links and a visible review date.
06 Fact-checking & accuracy
How a claim becomes something we will publish.
Accuracy is a process, not a promise. Before a statement appears in a BitResQ article, it has to clear at least one of these bars:
- Tested by us - the exact steps were reproduced on a real mailbox, file or device in our environment.
- Documented by the vendor - the behaviour is confirmed in official Microsoft, Apple or product documentation, and linked.
- Confirmed by an expert - a subject-matter reviewer with hands-on experience has verified it.
External statistics, quotes and case studies are attributed with a clear link to the original source. Rephrasing someone else's article is never a substitute for first-hand knowledge.
07 Our AI policy
Written by people, for people.
The substance is always human
Every BitResQ article is written and verified by a human subject-matter expert. AI tools may help with background tasks such as initial research gathering or outline structuring, but all technical claims, test results and recommendations are produced and checked by our authors. We do not publish machine-generated content as our own analysis.
08 Review & approval
Nobody publishes alone.
No article reaches readers on the strength of one person's word. Every piece moves through a defined pipeline, and no stage may be skipped.
| Stage | Owner | What is checked |
|---|---|---|
| 1 Self-review | Author | Full check against these standards before submission. |
| 2 Editorial review | Editor | Structure, clarity, completeness and brand voice. |
| 3 Technical QA | Reviewer | Steps re-tested; screenshots and warnings verified. |
| 4 Approval | Editorial reviewer | Final accuracy and quality sign-off before publish. |
| 5 Publish check | Editor | Metadata, links, formatting and review date. |
The reviewer name shown on an article - for example, "Approved by Leena Taylor" - means that person personally verified the piece met this standard before it went live.
09 Corrections & updates
Software changes - so does our content.
A correction is not an embarrassment; it is proof we are paying attention. When we or a reader spot an inaccuracy, we open a tracked task and aim to resolve critical technical errors within 48 hours, with a dated update note on the article. To keep guidance current, every article sits on a rolling review schedule:
| Reviewed at least | Content type |
|---|---|
| Every 3 months | Software reviews and version-dependent recovery or migration steps. |
| Every 6 months | Platform guides, comparisons and rankings tied to product versions. |
| Every 12 months | Evergreen explainers - file formats, concepts and foundational how-tos. |
Spotted something wrong?
Email us via the contact form with the subject line "Correction Request". A senior editor reviews every report and responds within two business days.
10 Editorial independence
Our advice is not for sale.
BitResQ makes software, and our blog naturally covers the problems that software solves. That makes independence something we have to actively protect. Editorial recommendations are based on testing and merit alone - never on what is most profitable to suggest. When an article mentions a BitResQ product, it is because it genuinely fits the task, and any commercial or affiliate relationship that could be seen as a conflict is disclosed clearly within the page.
11 Our editorial team
The people who stand behind the content.
Our content is shaped by a small, accountable team. Authors bring the hands-on testing; editors hold the line on accuracy and clarity. Two of the people responsible for what you read:
Shubham Dixit
Content Lead & Technical AuthorShubham leads BitResQ's how-to and troubleshooting content. He works close to the technical detail - email formats like PST, OST, MBOX and EML, Windows mail clients, and migration workflows - and tests each procedure on real data before it is written up. His focus is turning genuinely tricky recovery problems into steps an ordinary reader can follow.
Connect on LinkedInLeena Taylor
Editor-in-Chief & Editorial ReviewerLeena owns editorial quality at BitResQ and is the final sign-off before an article is published. She reviews each piece for accuracy, balance and clarity, and her name on a page - "Approved by Leena Taylor" - is our commitment that it met this standard. She also maintains these guidelines and keeps them current as platforms and best practices change.
Connect on LinkedInWe write for people on the worst day of their digital life - the mailbox that will not open, the file that will not load. They do not need cleverness. They need to be right the first time. That is the entire job.
LTLeena TaylorEditor-in-Chief, BitResQA final word
These standards are the complete, binding editorial policy for everything published under the BitResQ name, and they supersede any earlier style notes or contributor briefs. They are also a living document: as email platforms evolve, storage changes and best practices shift, we update them - and everyone who writes for us is expected to work to the current version.
Questions about how to apply any section, or suggestions to improve it, are always welcome through our contact page.
Was this page helpful?
Tell us what to improve at bitresq.com/contact-us