Standards & Transparency

Our Editorial Policy

IMGVO publishes guides, comparisons, and tutorials about image formats, compression, and web performance. This page explains the standards we hold ourselves to.

๐Ÿ“… Last updated: May 2026
๐Ÿ‘ค Reviewed by: Editorial Team

Our Editorial Mission

IMGVO's editorial goal is to be the most accurate, up-to-date, and practically useful resource for anyone working with digital images on the web. Our guides are written for developers, designers, photographers, marketers, and anyone else who needs reliable information about image formats, compression, and optimisation.

We believe that accurate technical content helps people make better decisions โ€” choosing the right format, understanding the trade-offs, and getting the best results from their images. We do not publish content for its own sake. Every guide we publish must answer a real question a real person has.

Core commitment: We will only publish information we have verified to be accurate. If we are uncertain, we say so. If we get something wrong, we correct it promptly and transparently.

Independence & Conflicts of Interest

IMGVO operates independently. Our editorial decisions are not influenced by advertisers, partners, investors, or any third party. The tools we recommend, the formats we rate, and the comparisons we publish are based entirely on technical accuracy and user benefit.

  • We do not accept payment in exchange for positive coverage of any tool, product, or service.
  • We do not receive affiliate commissions for recommending third-party software.
  • We do not allow the same team members to handle both commercial and editorial decisions.
  • We disclose any potential conflicts of interest in the articles where they are relevant.

If a company or individual approaches us offering payment to influence our editorial content, we decline. If we are offered a free tool or service for review purposes, we disclose this clearly in the article.

Research & Fact-Checking Process

Every guide published on IMGVO follows a documented research and review process before publication.

1

Primary Research

We start with primary sources: browser documentation (MDN, Chrome Developers, WebKit Blog), format specifications (IETF RFCs, ISO standards), and peer-reviewed research where available.

2

Practical Testing

Claims about compression ratios, conversion quality, and browser support are tested empirically. We use standardised test images across multiple browsers and operating systems.

3

Technical Review

A second team member with relevant expertise reviews each article before publication, checking for factual accuracy, completeness, and any outdated information.

4

Ongoing Monitoring

We monitor browser support tables (caniuse.com), format specification changes, and reader feedback. Articles are updated when information changes.

Author Standards

All content published on IMGVO is written by named authors whose credentials are documented on our Authors page. We require that authors meet the following standards:

  • Authors must have verifiable expertise in their subject area โ€” either formal training, professional experience, or a documented track record of accurate technical writing.
  • Authors must disclose any financial relationships with companies mentioned in their articles.
  • Authors are responsible for the accuracy of their claims and must be able to cite primary sources on request.
  • AI-assisted writing tools may be used in drafting, but all factual claims must be verified by the named human author before publication.

Ghost-written content is not published under a named author's byline. If an article does not carry an author name, it is published under the IMGVO editorial team's collective responsibility.

Corrections & Updates

When we identify or receive notification of an error in our content, we act promptly:

Minor errors

Typographical errors, broken links, and minor factual clarifications are corrected immediately without a formal notice. A note at the top of the article may be added for transparency.

Significant factual errors

If a core factual claim in an article is found to be incorrect, we correct it and add a dated correction notice explaining what changed and why. We do not silently delete or rewrite incorrect information.

Outdated information

Articles covering browser support, file format specifications, or tool capabilities are reviewed when significant changes occur in those areas. Updated articles are marked with a "Last updated" date.

To report an error, please use our Contact page. We respond to correction requests within 5 business days.

Feedback & Complaints

We take our editorial responsibilities seriously. If you believe an article contains an error, is missing important context, or violates any of the standards described on this page, we want to hear from you.

You can reach our editorial team via the Contact page. Please include the URL of the article in question and as much detail as possible about your concern. We commit to responding within 5 business days and to investigating all substantive complaints thoroughly.

If you are a researcher, academic, or industry professional who spots a technical inaccuracy, we especially welcome your feedback. Accurate technical content is our primary commitment, and expert correction helps us fulfil it.