Editorial Policy

This page sets out how TechieHub produces, checks, and corrects what it publishes. It is public so you can judge our work against a stated standard rather than taking it on trust.

Who is responsible

All content is published under the editorial responsibility of Hamza, a software engineer who reviews and approves every article before it goes live. Questions about any of the standards below go to contact@techiehub.blog, or through our contact page.

How our articles are produced

We use AI tools in our drafting process, and we think you should know that. Research assembly and first drafts are often AI-assisted. Nothing is published on that basis alone.

Before an article goes live it is reviewed by a human editor who:

• Verifies every hardware and licence claim against the primary source — the official model card, repository, or licence text. Not a summary, not another article. These are the figures most often wrong elsewhere, and they are the reason to check.
• Removes claims that cannot be sourced. If a benchmark, price, or release date cannot be traced to a citable origin, it does not run.
• Rewrites for a specific reader with a specific decision to make, rather than for keyword coverage.
• Checks that the recommendation is genuinely differentiated — that the article says which option to pick and why, and is willing to say when the popular choice is the wrong one.

Where an article’s conclusion contradicts the general consensus, we state the evidence for the departure in the article itself.

Sourcing standards

• Licence terms are quoted as written, not as marketed. Where a model is widely described as permissively licensed but is not, we say so explicitly.
• VRAM and hardware figures come from the model’s own documentation, with the tested configuration stated.
• Dates are absolute, never “recently” or “last month”.
• Comparison criteria are declared before the verdict, not fitted to it afterwards.

Illustrative examples

Some articles include a worked example showing how a setup performs in practice. Where such an example is a composite drawn from common patterns rather than a single documented case, it is labelled as a composite at the point of use. We do not present invented individuals as real customers or publish testimonials we did not receive.

Corrections

When we get something wrong, we correct the article rather than remove it, and we note what changed. Errors of fact in a recommendation — a licence term, a VRAM floor, a version number — are treated as urgent because readers act on them.

Report an error to contact@techiehub.blog with the URL and the specific claim. You will get a reply either way, including when we conclude the original was right.

Updates

Guides covering fast-moving software are revisited as the underlying tools change — new model versions, licence revisions, and discontinued products. An article’s last substantive update is reflected in its published metadata. We do not refresh dates without changing content.

Independence and how we make money

TechieHub earns revenue from affiliate commissions and display advertising.

• No vendor pays for placement. No company has ever paid to appear in, or rank higher within, a comparison on this site.
• No sponsored content is presented as editorial.
• Affiliate links are disclosed on the pages that carry them, before the recommendation rather than after it.
• Advertising is separated from editorial. Advertisers have no input into what we cover or conclude, and no advance sight of articles.

Several models we recommend most strongly are free downloads that earn us nothing. That is the point of separating the two.

Reader feedback

If a recommendation did not work out on your hardware, we want to hear it — that feedback is how the hardware guidance gets more accurate. Write to contact@techiehub.blog.