Editorial policy

SiteComms Australia exists to make a technically confusing category easier to understand. The site should be useful enough that a buyer can make a better next decision, while being clear about what is indicative and what still needs professional confirmation.

What we publish

• Guidance grounded in technical documentation, official sources or disclosed project assumptions
• Indicative pricing only when the calculation method and limitations are clear
• Funding guidance that distinguishes a potential fit from formal eligibility or approval
• Named, real reviewers rather than invented experts or personas

How content is maintained

Pricing and funding pages carry explicit review dates. When source rules or pricing assumptions change materially, the relevant page and tool configuration should be updated together.

Comparison principles

• Recommendation criteria are use-case specific: a product may appear prominently in one use case and not another.
• Manufacturer evidence and Australia local evidence (availability, support, project precedent) are distinguished and labelled.
• Lack of a referral partnership does not exclude a legitimate competitor from fair editorial coverage.
• Commercial participation does not entitle a provider to a positive ranking or guaranteed placement.
• Corrections can be submitted by any manufacturer or provider through the contact page.

What we avoid

• Fabricated averages, sample sizes or customer outcomes
• Calling an indicative estimate a formal quote
• Calling a funding fit an approval or guarantee
• Recommendations that cannot be explained in plain language