Primary sources · 4
- [1] Google Search Quality Rater Guidelines — Public document defining the E-E-A-T (Experience, Expertise, Authoritativeness, Trustworthiness) framework Google's search quality raters apply — the bar this editorial process is calibrated against · Google · Continuously updated; current version 2024 https://services.google.com/fh/files/misc/hsw-sqrg.pdf
- [2] International Fact-Checking Network (IFCN) Code of Principles — Five-pillar framework for trustworthy fact-checking: non-partisanship, transparency of sources, transparency of funding, transparency of methodology, and open corrections policy · Poynter Institute · Current edition 2022 https://www.ifcncodeofprinciples.poynter.org/
- [3] Google Helpful Content Guidance — Google Search Central guidance on AI-assisted content — content quality matters more than method of creation; primary-source verification is the differentiating signal · Google Search Central · Latest update February 2023 https://developers.google.com/search/blog/2023/02/google-search-and-ai-content
- [4] NewsGuard Reliability Criteria — Nine-criterion framework for assessing news and information sites; AirMilesCalc applies the methodology-relevant criteria (clear corrections, transparency of ownership, responsibility for content) · NewsGuard · Current criteria 2024 https://www.newsguardtech.com/ratings/rating-process-criteria/
Every page on AirMilesCalc is researched, written, and reviewed by Sam K., the independent maintainer. This page documents the standards applied to every methodology page, every learn page, and every calculator-output page — what counts as a valid source, how corrections are handled, how AI assistance is used, and how often the content is re-verified.
How content is researched and sourced
Every factual claim on AirMilesCalc traces to a primary source — a published paper, a regulator's official document, a manufacturer's spec sheet, a government data release. Aggregator websites, Wikipedia articles, and second-hand references are used for navigation and context but never cited as the authority for a number. The verified-or-omitted rule is strict: if a number can't be traced to a primary source, it is removed from the page, not paraphrased or hedged.
| Topic area | Primary sources accepted | Examples used on the site |
|---|---|---|
| Distance calculation | Peer-reviewed papers; geodetic standards bodies | Vincenty (1975) Survey Review; NGA WGS-84 standard |
| CO₂ emission factors | Government greenhouse-gas conversion-factor publications | DESNZ (UK) annual conversion factors; IEA aviation tracking |
| Radiative forcing | Peer-reviewed atmospheric-science papers | Lee et al. (2021) Atmospheric Environment 244, 117834 |
| Airport / airline / route data | Open-data projects with auditable provenance and an open licence | OpenFlights (ODbL v1.0) |
| Airport traffic rankings | Industry-body annual rankings | ACI World annual passenger-traffic releases |
| Aviation regulations | Regulator publications | ICAO Annexes; FAA Advisory Circulars; EASA Certification Specifications |
| Jet-lag and circadian research | Peer-reviewed clinical papers | Sack (2010) NEJM jet-lag review; Czeisler et al. on circadian period |
The Sources block at the top of every methodology and learn page lists the specific publications used on that page, with publication date and URL. A reader who wants to verify a number can click straight from the Sources block to the underlying paper or government document.
Fact-checking and verification
Every numeric claim in prose is double-sourced where possible: once against the primary publication, once against a derivative or independent calculation. Where the two diverge, the lower-confidence number is dropped, the discrepancy is documented in a Callout, and the reader is told which value the site shows and why.
- 1Identify the primary source
Locate the original publication. For DESNZ conversion factors that is the gov.uk spreadsheet for the relevant reporting year; for ACI rankings it is the ACI press release for the relevant data year.
- 2Verify the number
Pull the number directly from the primary source, not from an aggregator. Check units, year, and methodology footnotes.
- 3Cross-check where feasible
For high-stakes numbers (CO₂ per pax-km, ACI rankings, distance precision claims), find an independent secondary source that reports the same value with the same methodology. If they disagree, investigate; if the discrepancy can't be resolved, document it openly.
- 4Write the prose around the verified figure
Every number in prose gets a one-sentence explanation: what it measures, why it matters, what it implies. No naked figures.
- 5Pre-publish review
The page is read end-to-end one more time looking for unsourced sentences, units mismatches, paragraph-length violations of the three-sentence rule, and any claim that smells like memory rather than verification.
Correction policy
Errors get acknowledged in-page and dated. The bar for triggering a correction is low: if a reader sends a credible report against a primary source, the correction goes in within 48–72 hours of receipt for routine issues, and within the statutory deadline for any data-subject matter under GDPR / CCPA.
| Severity | Examples | Resolution timeline | How the correction is disclosed |
|---|---|---|---|
| Critical | Wrong distance, wrong CO₂ figure, wrong regulator name, factual error in methodology | Same day where feasible; otherwise within 72 hours | Inline correction note dated; if material, a separate Callout flagging the prior error |
| Substantive | Outdated source year, missing context, ambiguous wording around a number | Within 7 days | Inline update; Sources block date refreshed |
| Minor | Typo, broken link, formatting issue | Within 14 days | Silent fix; not separately disclosed |
| Source supersession | Primary source publishes a new edition (DESNZ annual update, ACI annual release) | Within 30 days of the new release | Page reviewed end-to-end; Sources block updated; meta.updated refreshed |
AI assistance disclosure
AirMilesCalc uses AI assistance during the writing process, in line with Google Search Central's 2023 guidance that content quality matters more than method of creation. The specific way AI is used is documented openly:
| Stage | AI used? | Why or why not |
|---|---|---|
| First-draft prose | Sometimes | Used to accelerate writing on long methodology pages; every paragraph is verified and rewritten by hand before publication |
| Code and calculation logic | Yes | Vincenty, Haversine, distance formulas, JSON-LD schemas, and React components are AI-assisted but reviewed line by line before commit |
| Primary-source verification | Never | Every cited number is verified against the primary publication by the human maintainer — not against an AI summary or memory |
| Fact-checking decisions | Never | Whether to include or omit a claim is a human editorial decision |
| Editorial voice and judgment | Never | Tone, framing, what to emphasise, what to leave out: human only |
The aim is that every page meets the bar Google Search Central published for AI-assisted content: people-first content, demonstrating expertise, not produced primarily to rank on search results. Content quality is audited against that standard before publication.
Editorial review cadence
Every methodology and learn page is reviewed at least annually and whenever its primary source publishes an update. The cadence is documented per source family below.
| Source family | Publication cycle | Triggered review |
|---|---|---|
| DESNZ greenhouse-gas conversion factors | Annual (typically June) | Methodology / DEFRA emission-factors page, /learn/cabin-class-emissions, calculator output |
| ACI World passenger-traffic rankings | Annual (typically April for prior year) | /learn/busiest-airports-in-the-world |
| IATA Net Zero / SAF progress reports | Annual (December) | /learn/sustainable-aviation-fuel, /learn/corsia |
| OpenFlights data | Community-maintained; route table stable since June 2014 | Distance and airport pages reviewed on data-correction reports |
| NGA WGS-84 standard | Stable (current revision July 2014) | Methodology pages reviewed on rare revision; otherwise stable |
| Sack 2010 jet-lag review | Stable; periodic literature update | /learn/jet-lag-science reviewed annually against newer chronobiology reviews |
Independence and conflicts of interest
AirMilesCalc has no affiliate relationships, no sponsorships, no paid placements, and no commercial partnerships with any airline, airport, booking aggregator, regulator, or industry trade body. The only projected revenue source is Google AdSense advertising once approved. External links to airline and airport sites are for editorial context and reader convenience only — not affiliate links.