Editorial standards
This page states how figures get onto this site, how they are checked, how often pages are read again, and what happens when something is wrong. It is written to be held to.
What Nova publishes as its own
Nova does not publish figures derived from its customers' Amazon data. Product facts we state about Nova itself, such as marketplace coverage, sync frequency and pricing, come from the product and are kept in a single versioned file, so a number on a page is the number in that file rather than one typed into the copy.
Amazon's own rates are quoted from Amazon's published pages with a link and the date we read them. Where a rate sits behind a Seller Central sign-in, no number is quoted.
How third-party statistics are handled
A statistic we did not compute carries a named source and a working link to the specific page that backs it, not to a homepage or a press index. Where a source states a period, we state the same period.
If a claim cannot be sourced, it is cut. We do not soften an unsourced claim with words like "many" or "most", and we do not cite an aggregator that is itself repeating an unsourced figure.
A Nova figure is never presented as third-party research, and a third-party figure is never presented as ours.
Worked examples are illustrations
Where an article walks through numbers to show how a calculation behaves, that is a worked example. It is labelled as one, and the arithmetic is shown so you can substitute your own inputs.
A worked example is never written as a customer story. We do not publish invented case studies, invented customer names, or results attributed to a customer who did not report them.
Review cadence
Timebound articles and news are reviewed every 90 days. Evergreen articles are reviewed every 180 days. The rule lives in code, and the review queue is generated from it rather than tracked by hand.
A review means the page was read, its claims checked against current sources, and its links tested. The date on a page records a review that actually happened. We do not bump a date to make a page look fresh, so a page that needed no change keeps its older date on purpose.
Where a page shows a next review date, that date is derived from the cadence rule and the last real review, not from the day you load the page.
Reporting an error
If a figure, a source or a calculation on this site looks wrong, tell us and we will check it. Email [email protected] with the page URL and what you think is wrong, or use the contact form.
When a published figure turns out to be wrong, we correct the page and move its review date, because a correction is a real review. Where the error changed the meaning of the page, we say what changed.