Editorial Policy

Last updated: October 30, 2026

VEYREM is where Som and Yun share the useful things we find while digging into AI, software, workflows, and new technology.

Because we want the site to stay useful instead of turning into a pile of filler, we keep a few editorial rules.

This page sets out the principles behind what we publish. For the steps behind an article, see how VEYREM documents tests and checks research sources.

What gets published

Every VEYREM article needs a real reason to exist.

That might be:

something one of us tested
something one of us researched deeply
a workflow that saves time
a comparison that makes a decision easier
a useful prompt or setup
a workflow, automation, or side-project idea worth exploring
a problem that keeps coming up
a new tool or feature with a genuinely useful application

We do not want to publish articles just because a keyword exists.

Original value

If an article uses outside sources, VEYREM should add something beyond repeating them.

That can mean:

connecting information across sources
explaining what matters in practice
adding a real use case
testing a claim
showing a workflow
explaining trade-offs
identifying limitations
translating technical information into something useful

If the article could be replaced by the first paragraph of a product page, we probably haven’t dug deep enough yet.

Authors and lead authors

Every article is published under a named lead author, Som or Yun. The lead author is responsible for the angle, the examples, the claims, and the decision to publish.

We choose the lead author by the problem the reader is trying to solve, not by the tool. Study, research, note-taking, creator workflows, and everyday uses lean toward Som. Work, automation, workflows, tools, and operations lean toward Yun. When a topic overlaps, one person leads. The other appears only when they add a separate perspective or a check the lead author couldn’t get alone.

Each author is responsible for saying whether they tested something themselves or relied on research. Errors are handled under the Corrections Policy.

In an article, “I” refers to its named author’s experience. “We” describes VEYREM’s shared editorial decisions. A practice prompt or expected answer is labeled as a suggestion unless the article documents a run.

Experience vs. research

VEYREM may publish both hands-on and research-based content.

When an author tested something personally, that author can write from direct experience.

When the work comes from research, the article makes that distinction clear when it matters.

Neither author writes “I tried,” “I tested,” or “in my experience” unless that is actually true.

Reviews and recommendations

A recommendation should come from the usefulness of the product, not from whether there is an affiliate link.

Reviews should include drawbacks when they matter.

If the free version is enough, that is worth saying.

If the author paid for something and would not pay again, that is worth saying too.

AI in the writing process

AI is part of how we work. We use it for research, organization, ideation, prompt testing, outlining, drafting, WordPress publishing, and building repeatable workflows.

What we don’t want is a site full of pages that exist only because an AI could generate them.

Every article should still have:

a clear purpose
human editorial judgment
fact-checking where needed
a reason it is useful to this audience

Accuracy

Fast-changing information should be checked against current sources whenever practical.

That includes:

pricing
subscription plans
features
model names
limits
availability
supported platforms
policies

If an error is found, VEYREM follows the Corrections Policy.

The editorial test

Before publishing, the lead author asks:

Would I still think this article was worth publishing if search traffic and affiliate commissions did not exist?

If the answer is no, we’d rather keep working on it than publish it.