Product HQ Editorial Standards & Values
We publish this page so you know who we are, how we work, and what you can expect from Product HQ. We are a product-management education brand. We create practical lessons, guides, and perspectives for people learning product management and for practitioners who want a clearer way to think about their work.
We write for real people, not just search engines. That means we aim to be useful, specific, and honest about what we know, what we have tested, and where reasonable people may disagree. This page is a promise about our process—not a claim that we never make mistakes.
Who we are
Product HQ focuses on PM education: product discovery, strategy, prioritization, customer understanding, execution, communication, and the day-to-day judgment that product work requires. Some articles are instructional; others are informed opinions or frameworks. We try to make that distinction clear so readers can decide how much weight to give each idea.
Our goal is to help you do better work, not to present one universal playbook. Context matters. A method that fits a startup may not fit a regulated company, a platform team, or a large organization. When advice depends on context, we say so.
How we research and edit
Before publishing, we define the question an article is trying to answer and check the important claims behind it. Depending on the topic, our research may include official product documentation, original research, books, public filings, reputable publications, interviews, practitioner experience, and hands-on testing. For fast-changing subjects, we check dates and current documentation rather than assuming an old explanation is still accurate.
We prefer primary sources when they are available. We link to sources when a reader would benefit from checking the evidence, following a method, or exploring a subject further. We do not present a source’s conclusion as proof of a broader claim than it supports. We separate evidence, interpretation, and opinion, and we avoid overstating certainty.
An editor or author reviews the structure, clarity, and usefulness of each piece. We look for missing context, ambiguous wording, unsupported assertions, and examples that could be mistaken for promises. We also review headlines and calls to action so they accurately reflect the article rather than manufacture urgency.
No made-up numbers or fake proof
We do not invent statistics, survey results, customer stories, testimonials, expert quotes, study findings, or performance claims. If we cannot verify a number, we leave it out or describe the point without a number. If we use an example, we label it as an example. If we share an observation from experience, we identify it as an observation rather than implying it is universal evidence.
We will not use a precise-looking figure to make an argument sound more credible. We would rather say “the evidence is mixed” or “this is a working hypothesis” than imply certainty we do not have.
Corrections and updates
We welcome corrections. If you spot a factual error, broken source, outdated instruction, unclear statement, or misleading omission, please contact us through the Product HQ contact form and include the page and the issue you found.
When a correction is warranted, we update the page and add a brief editor’s note when the change is material. We may also update the date when an article has been substantially reviewed. We do not quietly change a material claim to hide a mistake. If an article is opinion, we may clarify the wording or add context without treating a difference of opinion as a factual error.
Commercial links and disclosure
Product HQ may link to our own courses, resources, or other offerings when they are relevant to the topic. These are commercial links, and we aim to make that relationship clear rather than presenting a promotion as independent editorial evidence. A course link does not change the standards we apply to the surrounding educational content.
If we ever use a third-party affiliate relationship or another compensated recommendation, we will disclose it clearly near the relevant link or recommendation. We do not promise that a product or service will produce a particular career or business outcome.
AI-assisted drafting, human accountability
We may use AI tools to help with brainstorming, outlining, transcription, or an early draft. AI is not our source of truth and does not replace research, judgment, or editing. A human editor is responsible for the final article: checking claims and links, removing invented or unsupported details, adding needed context, and making sure the language reflects our standards and voice.
We do not publish AI-generated text simply because it sounds confident. We review it for accuracy, originality, usefulness, and respect for readers. When a topic needs firsthand expertise or current verification, we seek that context rather than relying on a generated answer.
For a closer look at how we research, write, and maintain educational articles, see our educational content review methodology.
Contact us
Questions about an article, our sources, a correction, or a commercial relationship are welcome. Please use the Product HQ contact form and mention “Editorial standards” in your message. We read feedback as part of the editorial process and use it to improve the work.
