Standards
Editorial policy
What we check before publishing, how we review tools, and what happens when we get something wrong.
Last updated: 5 August 2026
Who writes for us
Every article carries a byline that links to an author page listing that person’s background and everything else they have written here. We do not publish anonymously and we do not invent credentials. Where an author’s experience is “keen amateur with eight years of raised beds” rather than “RHS-qualified”, the author page says exactly that.
How horticultural claims get checked
Before a guide publishes, anything factual is checked against primary sources:
- University extension and agricultural college publications
- National horticultural societies and botanic garden guidance
- Published trial data and peer-reviewed research where it exists
- Seed and plant supplier data for cultivar-specific timings
Where sources conflict — and on things like sowing dates and pruning timing they often do — we tell you there is disagreement instead of picking the tidier answer. Where advice is climate-dependent, we frame it around conditions you can observe (soil temperature, last frost, hours of direct sun) rather than calendar dates that only work in one region.
How we assess tools, clothing and accessories
Our product work rests on four questions, in this order:
- Does the design suit the job? Bypass or anvil, forged or stamped, long handle or short — the answer follows from the task, not from the brand.
- Where will it fail? Nearly every disappointing garden tool fails at the join between handle and head. Tang construction, socket depth and fastening method tell you more about longevity than any marketing copy.
- Does it fit the person using it? Grip circumference, weight, and the force needed to close a handle matter enormously — and matter more with arthritis, smaller hands, or a bad back.
- Can it be maintained? Can you sharpen it, replace the blade, get a new spring? A tool you can service is a different purchase from one you replace.
We distinguish clearly between hands-on use (we have owned and used it, and for how long), hands-on inspection (we have handled it) and specification analysis (we have not, and are reasoning from construction). That distinction appears in the article, not buried in a policy page.
We do not run laboratory testing, and we do not claim to. Where a number needs a lab — fabric UPF ratings, cut resistance grades — we cite the standard and the manufacturer rather than pretending we measured it.
What we refuse to publish
- Advice that would be unsafe without qualification (chemical use, tree work at height, tool modification)
- Plant or pest identification presented with more confidence than a photo can support
- Product claims we cannot trace to a source
- Anything a commercial partner asked us to say
- AI-generated copy published without a named human editing and verifying it
Review cycle
Guides are revisited at least once every twelve months, and sooner when something material changes — a recommended tool is discontinued, guidance on a pesticide changes, a pest extends its range. Articles show both a published and an updated date, and a substantive revision gets a short “what changed” note at the top, so you are never guessing whether a refresh was real or cosmetic.
Corrections
We correct openly. Minor fixes (typos, broken links, a clarified sentence) are made quietly. Anything that could have led a reader to do the wrong thing gets a dated correction note on the page. We do not silently delete articles to bury a mistake.
To report an error, email hello@sometimes-gardening.com with the URL and, if you can, the sentence at issue.
Commercial independence
Advertising and affiliate relationships have no influence on editorial judgement, and the people who write recommendations are not compensated on the basis of what they recommend. See our affiliate disclosure for the specifics.
Use of AI
We use AI tools the way we use a spellchecker or a search engine — for research shortlists, structure and copy-editing suggestions. We do not publish machine-written articles under a human byline, and every factual claim is verified by a person against a named source before it goes live. If that ever changes, this page changes first.