Published standards

Editorial and corrections policy

This policy explains who is accountable for Stream Mentor, what our evidence labels mean, and what must happen before an article receives a new update date.

Owner: Stefan Mitrovic

Ownership and accountability

Stream Mentor is an independent publication founded in 2021. Stefan Mitrovic is the founder and editorial lead. He is responsible for the site's publishing standards, migration, correction process, and current page-by-page rebuild.

The publication does not claim that every legacy WordPress article already meets this policy. Older pages are being reviewed, materially rewritten, consolidated, or retired. That limitation is stated openly because trust cannot be created with schema markup alone.

Authorship and bylines

A visible byline identifies the author attached to the published work. Materially rewritten pages must not silently credit a person who did not write or review the new version. Where a named editor or reviewer participated, that relationship should be visible before it appears in structured data.

Stefan's profile describes his real experience in publishing, SEO, and software products. It does not turn that experience into a claim that he is a professional streamer or that he personally tested every item mentioned on the site.

Research and sources

For current platform rules, eligibility, safety controls, file formats, software requirements, and product behavior, we prefer the documentation published by the party that controls the feature. Useful source types include official help centers, developer documentation, manuals, standards, policies, and direct announcements.

Secondary reporting can supply context. It should not be used to manufacture private earnings, personal details, product performance, or certainty that the source does not provide. External links are selected for evidentiary value, not as a signal that every claim on the destination is endorsed.

Hands-on tests, comparisons, and recommendations

“Tested,” “we used,” and similar first-person language require a real test record. Research-based comparisons instead explain the documented requirements, decision criteria, compatibility questions, limitations, and a reproducible test the reader can run.

A recommendation should describe who it is for and what tradeoff it makes. Affiliate availability, a high price, follower counts, or competitor consensus do not prove that a product or creator is “best.”

AI and automation assistance

AI tools and scripts may assist with organizing research, drafting, migration, accessibility checks, link checks, image production, and mechanical quality assurance. They do not create first-hand experience, private facts, or source authority.

A page marked as materially updated must still have its important claims checked against the cited sources, its evidence boundaries made clear, and its links and presentation reviewed. We do not publish thousands of automatically re-dated pages to simulate freshness.

Publication dates and material updates

The original publication date remains part of the article record. An updated date is shown only after substantive work, such as correcting advice, checking current documentation, replacing unsafe instructions, changing the decision framework, improving source coverage, or rewriting major sections.

Styling changes, spelling fixes, automated formatting, or a new deployment do not earn a fresh article date. Visible dates, structured data, and sitemap modification dates should describe the same editorial event.

Affiliate links and commercial independence

Stream Mentor may earn a commission from some links. That relationship is disclosed and does not change the reader's price. Payment, affiliate eligibility, free access, or a product sample does not purchase coverage or a favorable conclusion.

When old vendor pages promote fake engagement, unsafe downloads, account trading, or unverifiable services, the safer editorial choice may be a risk guide, consolidation, or retirement—not preserving affiliate revenue.

Corrections and reader reports

Readers can report a factual error, broken source, changed requirement, undisclosed conflict, accessibility problem, or overstated test through the contact page. Include the page URL, the exact statement, and a supporting source when possible.

Material errors are corrected in the article. The update date changes only when the correction or surrounding revision is material. Minor spelling and formatting fixes may be made without promoting the page as newly updated.

Consolidated and retired content

Duplicate pages are redirected only when the destination genuinely satisfies the same reader intent. A misleading redirect to a generic category is not used merely to retain a URL. Content that is unsafe, orphaned, indefensible, or no longer worth maintaining can return HTTP 410 and be removed from recommendations, feeds, and sitemaps.