Editorial policy

Posts are published by the clowand team, the small company that designs and sells clowand disposable toilet cleaning systems. We do not run a separate newsroom and we do not invent individual author personas.

We write about bathroom cleaning, hygiene routines and the products we make. When a post relies on a claim outside our own product knowledge, it links to the source we used.

Before anything is published, it goes through the following:

1. Factual review. Every statistic, date, quotation, and product claim is traced to a primary source. Numbers that cannot be traced are removed rather than softened.
2. Product review. Product details such as sizes, pad counts, prices and policies are checked against the live product pages and store policies before publishing.
3. Editorial review. A team member reads the full post for accuracy, structure, and whether it answers the question in the title. As a small team, factual and editorial review may be done in the same pass.

If something here is wrong, we want to fix it, and we want the fix to be visible rather than quiet.

Email support@clowand.com with the post URL and the specific claim you are disputing. You will get a reply within five working days, including when the answer is that we are keeping the post as written and why.

What happens next depends on what is wrong:

• Factual error. We correct the text and add a dated correction note at the foot of the post describing what changed. We do not silently edit a claim out of existence.
• Outdated but once accurate. We update the post and change its modified date. The original claim stays visible in the update note where the distinction matters.
• Typo or broken link. Fixed without a note, and without touching the modified date.

That last rule is the one worth keeping. The modified date on a post is a freshness signal to both readers and search engines, and bumping it for a typo is a small lie that accumulates into a site whose dates mean nothing.

We use AI tools in this work and we would rather describe how than let you guess. What follows is the boundary we hold.

We use it for: research assistance and finding sources we then read ourselves, outlining and structural feedback, drafting passages a human then rewrites, editing for clarity, and generating the routine metadata around a post.

We do not use it for: publishing a draft no human has read end to end, generating statistics or quotations, inventing experience an author does not have, or producing citations without opening every source first.

A named human author is accountable for every claim in every post, whatever tool helped produce the sentence it sits in. That accountability is the thing that does not change.

Claims that are not self-evident carry a link to where they came from, inline, at the point the claim is made. We link to the primary source rather than to coverage of it: the paper rather than the press release, the documentation rather than the blog post about the documentation.

Where a source is behind a paywall we say so. Where a number comes from a vendor with an interest in it, we name the vendor next to the number. Where we could not verify something we wanted to use, we leave it out rather than hedge it into the text.

Sources are dated in the post because a link to a moving document is a claim about what it said when we read it, not about what it says now.

clowand makes and sells the products this blog discusses, so we have a direct financial interest in them. Posts that recommend or compare clowand products are written by the company that sells them, and you should read them with that in mind.

Corrections and factual disputes: support@clowand.com.

Everything we publish is listed on the blog index.