We will not name a brand or a product
Not in an article, not in a list, not in an aside, not as an example, and not as something to avoid.
The reason is structural. This publication describes ingredient classes by function so that a reader can evaluate anything they encounter. A publication that also names products is inevitably read as recommending them, and once that happens the functional explanations become a preamble to a purchase.
It costs us the traffic that product roundups attract and the revenue that affiliate links generate. That is the trade.
We will not carry affiliate links or advertising
There are no affiliate links anywhere on this site and there will not be. We do not run display advertising, we do not use advertising networks, and we do not publish sponsored articles.
How we are funded instead is set out in full on the about page, on the register criteria page and on the newsletter page, with rates published.
We will not diagnose or suggest treatment
We describe the physics of a structure under load. We do not tell you what a rash is, what a persistent patch might be, or what to put on anything.
Where a presentation crosses out of environmental dryness and mechanical wear, we stop and point to a pharmacist, a GP or, for anything systemic, to emergency services. Those referral lines appear in every relevant article and they are not softened anywhere.
We also name recognised phenomena, including cold related skin responses, without describing how any of them is managed. Naming something so that a reader knows it is worth showing to someone is useful. Describing management would be practising medicine at a distance, badly.
We will not invent a number
No percentages, no measured values, no thresholds, no quantities to apply, no durations expressed as figures where a figure would imply a measurement.
Skin writing is full of specific sounding numbers with no provenance. Hours of hydration, percentages of improvement, litres of water per day, minutes in a shower. Almost none of them can be traced.
Where a reader wants a number, we say that there is not a defensible one and give a direction instead. Fewer washes rather than a permitted number of washes. Cooler rather than a temperature. That is less satisfying and it is accurate.
We will not repeat a claim we cannot support
Including popular ones, including ones that would flatter our readers, and including ones that would make an article more shareable.
We will not tell you that any ingredient repairs a barrier, that natural is safer, that a specific ingredient is toxic, that drinking more water fixes dry skin, or that a routine will produce a result on a schedule.
Where a question is genuinely unresolved, such as whether domestic water hardness independently affects skin conditions, we say it is unresolved rather than picking a side.
| We will not | Because | What it costs |
|---|---|---|
| Name a brand or product | Functional explanation and product recommendation corrupt each other | Product roundup traffic and affiliate revenue |
| Carry affiliate links or advertising | Revenue that depends on a purchase shapes the writing | The commonest revenue model in this field |
| Diagnose or suggest treatment | We are not qualified and a website cannot examine you | Traffic from people wanting an answer now |
| Invent a number | Unsupported specificity is the standard failure of skin writing | Copy that sounds more authoritative than ours |
| Rank anyone | A ranking without an assessment is an opinion dressed as a conclusion | The most lucrative format in publishing |
| Treat sun protection as our subject | It is covered properly elsewhere and dilutes ours | A very large search topic |
Ordering framework written by this publication from general skin physiology. It is not a measurement, it is not taken from any study, and no number in it is a reading.
We will not rank anyone
We publish no best of lists, no ratings, no scores and no comparisons of providers.
Our register is alphabetical, is labelled as paid, and carries only disclosed facts that can be checked, including professional registration where a listed party holds it. It is explicitly not a clinical endorsement and we have assessed nobody. That statement appears on the register itself.
The reason is simple: a ranking implies an assessment, we have not carried one out, and a ranking without an assessment is an opinion dressed as a conclusion.
We will not write about sun protection as though it were our subject
Ultraviolet exposure is a real stressor and it matters at high latitudes, under cloud and especially with reflection from water. It is also comprehensively covered by other publications, including several that specialise in it entirely.
Our subject is the skin barrier under cold, wet and mechanical load. Ultraviolet appears here only in passing, as one load among several, and we point elsewhere for it. Doing one subject properly is the whole editorial proposition.
What we will do
Describe mechanisms in enough detail to be useful. Name the physical stressor and the control that addresses that specific mechanism rather than the symptom. Say what a control does not fix. Draw where in the skin a process happens. Cite institutional sources. Label every framework of our own as ours. Publish our rates and what money cannot buy. Correct errors with a visible note.
And keep the referral lines where they are.