Sharefox Editorial Policy

Trust & transparency — how we research, write, and review every article we publish.


Last reviewed	8 May 2026
Next review	8 November 2026
Policy version	v3.1
Owner	Sharefox Editorial
Contact	editorial@sharefox.co

Sharefox has worked with rental businesses since 2014. The standards on this page govern every piece of content we publish — written by humans, reviewed by operators, sourced from primary research, and corrected publicly when we get things wrong.

1. Editorial mission

We publish content to help rental operators run better businesses. Not to manipulate search rankings, not to fill a content calendar, and not to game algorithms.

Sharefox is a rental management platform. Every article we publish exists to help someone running, scaling, or evaluating a rental business — whether they ever become a customer or not. Our editorial team is held to the same standard as our product team: ship things that are useful, honest, and accurate, or do not ship them at all.

This page documents how we make sure that happens. It is reviewed twice yearly and the version history is preserved.

2. Our principles

Six principles govern every article — including this one. Editors apply them in order: an article that fails an earlier principle is not fixed by passing a later one.

2.1 Experience over information

Articles are grounded in first-hand work with rental operators. We show our admin, our customers’ setups, and the numbers we see on our platform — not generic descriptions of what a rental business “should” look like.

2.2 Honest comparison

When we discuss alternatives — competitors, integrations, vendor stacks — we describe trade-offs honestly, including cases where another tool fits better. Pretending we are universally best is a trust failure.

2.3 Sources or silence

Statistics, regulations, and external claims are cited to the primary source. If we cannot cite it, we do not publish it. “Studies show” without a study link is a red flag we treat as a draft blocker.

2.4 Local where it matters

Tax, insurance, regulatory and legal content is written for a specific jurisdiction (Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Finland, EU, UK, US). We do not publish geography-free generalisations on topics where geography determines the answer.

2.5 Update or retire

An article more than 18 months old is reviewed for accuracy. Articles that no longer serve readers are retired with a 301 redirect to a replacement, not silently left to rot in the index.

2.6 Plain answers

We write to be understood by an operator running a tool-rental shop in Trondheim, not to impress other content marketers. Jargon that does not earn its place gets cut.

3. Authorship & expertise

Every article has a named human author with a verifiable bio. No ghost-bylined “team” posts and no AI-only authorship.

3.1 Who writes for Sharefox

Articles are written by one of three groups, identified at the top of every post:

Sharefox staff — product, customer success, partnerships, and founders. Bios link to LinkedIn and disclose role and tenure.
Customer experts — operators currently running rental businesses on Sharefox who have agreed to contribute on their domain of experience. Listed in the Expert Network.
External contributors — independent specialists in rental law, insurance, tax, or vertical-specific operations. Engaged on a case basis with disclosed compensation.

3.2 Author requirements

Every byline carries a bio with at minimum:

Full name
Current role
Relevant years of experience
LinkedIn link
Any conflicts of interest material to the article

Each author has a dedicated author page on this site. Person schema markup links the byline to verifiable external profiles via the sameAs array.

3.3 What we do not allow

Pseudonyms or fabricated author profiles
Bylines without verifiable LinkedIn or comparable public presence
“Sharefox Team” as author on substantive articles (reserved for company announcements only)
AI as an author or co-author

4. Review process

Every article passes through five gates before publication. Articles in YMYL-adjacent categories (legal, tax, financial structuring) go through an additional jurisdictional review.

Gate 01 — Brief & sources

The author submits a brief naming the target reader, the question being answered, and the primary sources that will be cited. Drafts without sourced briefs are returned without review.

Gate 02 — First-party check

An editor verifies the article contains genuine first-party content: a screenshot, a customer quote, a platform statistic, or annotated experience. Generic articles are rewritten or rejected.

Gate 03 — Subject-matter review

A subject-matter reviewer — internal expert or named customer from the Expert Network — reads for accuracy. Their name and review date are recorded on the article and stored in our editorial log.

Gate 04 — Editorial review

An editor reviews structure, clarity, sourcing, and tone. Claims without citations are flagged. Comparisons that fail the honesty principle are rewritten.

Gate 05 — Publication & schema

Article is published with full schema markup (Article, Person, BreadcrumbList, FAQPage where applicable), visible datePublished and dateModified, named reviewer, and source list.

Reviewer disclosure — Where a Sharefox customer reviews an article, that fact is disclosed in the byline. Customer reviewers are not paid for review work and do not have approval rights over content that mentions competitors or alternative platforms.

5. Sourcing & citations

External claims are linked to primary sources. Internal claims are linked to the underlying data or customer.

5.1 Source hierarchy

When multiple sources are available, we cite in this order of preference:

Primary sources — government data, regulatory texts, peer-reviewed research, official corporate filings
Industry bodies and trade associations with disclosed methodology
Reputable trade and business press
Sharefox proprietary data — anonymised, aggregated, methodology disclosed on the Methodology page

Blog posts citing other blog posts citing the original source are not acceptable. We trace claims to the actual study, statute, or filing.

5.2 Citation format

Inline links use descriptive anchor text. Every article ends with a Sources & references section listing each cited document with its publisher and access date. We use rel="nofollow" only where required (sponsored, UGC); we do not use it punitively to withhold credit from sources we cite.

5.3 Proprietary data

When we cite our own platform data, we disclose the sample size, time window, and any filtering. This is governed by our public Methodology page. We do not cherry-pick favourable cohorts and we publish the methodology before we publish the headline number.

6. Use of AI

Generative AI is a tool we use sparingly and disclose openly. It does not write our articles and it does not replace human judgment.

Position statement (2026)

AI assists. Humans write, review, and stand behind every published word.

We do not believe AI-generated content meets our standard for first-hand experience or domain expertise. Articles that read as if a model wrote them — generic structure, hedged claims, unsourced statistics, no original insight — fail our review process whether or not a model was involved.

What we do

AI used for outlining, research clustering, and grammar
AI never used as the author or sole drafter
AI-generated images disclosed in the caption
AI translations reviewed by a fluent human before publication

7. Disclosure & independence

Sharefox is a commercial company. We are transparent about that and about anything that could reasonably influence what we say.

7.1 Sponsored content

We do not publish sponsored content disguised as editorial. Paid placements are clearly labelled “Sponsored” at the top and bottom of the article and do not pass through the editorial review process described above.

7.2 Affiliate & partner links

Sharefox earns no affiliate commissions on third-party tools mentioned in editorial content. Where we link to an integration partner (for example, a payment provider, smart-lock vendor, or accounting platform), the link is provided because it is genuinely useful to the reader, not because of a referral arrangement.

7.3 Competitive comparisons

Articles comparing Sharefox to competitors are written to the same honesty standard as all other content. Reviewers and editors are explicitly instructed to flag self-serving framing. Where a competitor is genuinely better suited to a use case, we say so.

7.4 Customer mentions

Customers named in articles have approved the mention. We do not name customers without consent, even in positive context, and we do not name former customers or churned accounts.

8. Corrections & updates

We get things wrong. When we do, we fix them publicly and we leave a record.

8.1 How to report an error

Email editorial@sharefox.co or use the “Report an issue” link in the footer of any article. Include the article URL and the specific claim you are flagging. We acknowledge factual reports within 2 business days and resolve them within 10 business days.

8.2 What gets corrected vs. updated

Type	Trigger	What we do
Correction	Factual error	Article fixed; dated correction note added at bottom explaining what was wrong and what changed
Update	Facts have changed since publication (price, regulation, vendor name, feature)	Article updated; `dateModified` incremented; brief note describing what changed
Retirement	Article no longer serves readers	Retired with a 301 redirect to a current replacement; retirement notes kept on file

8.3 What we do not do

We do not silently rewrite articles to hide errors.
We do not unpublish articles to make criticism go away.
We do not change dateModified for cosmetic edits.

8.4 Service-level targets

Metric	Target
Acknowledgement	2 business days
Resolution	10 business days
Public correction log	/corrections

9. Contact & feedback

Questions about a specific article, our editorial standards, or the policy itself are welcome. We read every email and respond to substantive feedback.

Editorial team — editorial@sharefox.co

Corrections, source questions, expert contributions, partnership pitches. For product, sales, or support enquiries please use the relevant contact channels — the editorial inbox is staffed by our content team and forwards to support are slower than going direct.

Version history

Version	Date	Change
v3.1	8 May 2026	Added §2.6 (Plain answers). Tightened AI-use disclosure language in §6. Added correction SLA table in §8.
v3.0	12 Feb 2026	Major revision. Added Use of AI section. Split disclosure and corrections into separate sections. Introduced 5-gate review process replacing previous 3-step process.
v2.4	9 Nov 2025	Added “Update or retire” principle. Clarified customer-mention consent requirements in §7.4.
v2.3	14 Aug 2025	Formalised author Person-schema requirements with `sameAs`. Added “What we do not allow” in §3.3.
v2.2	22 May 2025	Added Sources hierarchy in §5.1. Introduced “Sources or silence” principle.
v2.1	18 Feb 2025	Established correction SLAs (2-day acknowledgement, 10-day resolution).
v2.0	5 Nov 2024	Rewritten alongside launch of Expert Network. Reviewer disclosure formalised.
v1.0	14 Mar 2024	Initial editorial policy published.

Editorial Policy