SeniorTechChoice exists to help adults 50+ make confident technology decisions. Everything on this page explains how we try to earn that trust. If you have questions about anything described here, or think we've fallen short of our own standards, please get in touch.
1. What we publish and what we don't
We publish buying guides, product comparisons, how-to articles, explainers about new technology, and online-safety guides. Every piece is built around one question: will this genuinely help someone make a better decision or understand something that affected them?
We do not publish sponsored content disguised as editorial. We do not accept payment from manufacturers in exchange for favorable reviews or coverage. We do not trade positive coverage for access, free products, or event invitations. We don't run press releases rewritten as articles. If a product appears on our site, it's because we think it deserves to be discussed, not because someone paid to put it there.
We also don't publish content outside our editorial remit. We're a technology site for adults 50+. If a topic falls outside that scope, even if it's popular or lucrative, we don't cover it. Staying focused is how we stay useful.
The test we apply before publishing anything: would I want my parents to read this? If the answer isn't a clear yes, the piece doesn't run.
2. How we use AI
SeniorTechChoice uses artificial intelligence as a research and drafting tool. Our AI tools, powered by Anthropic's Claude models, synthesize publicly available buyer reviews, product specifications, and independent reporting into plain-language summaries. This is how we can cover a wider range of products than a small team could test hands-on.
Here is the honest part: AI drafts, Mike edits, and nothing publishes without human review. Every article on this site has been read, edited, fact-checked, and approved by Mike H., our founder and editor, before it goes live. We do not push AI-generated output directly to publication. We do not treat AI summaries as infallible. When Claude is wrong, we correct it. When Claude is unsure, we say so in the article.
We also use AI live on the site, in the Research, Compare, and Product Support tools. These tools clearly label their output as AI-generated, disclose that summaries are based on publicly available data rather than hands-on testing, and note the limitations of that approach. Our full methodology is documented on the How we review products page.
We believe AI, used transparently and with editorial oversight, produces better and more consistent guidance than the status quo of ad-driven listicles rewritten under different headlines. But we also believe readers deserve to know exactly how their information was produced. That's why we disclose it on every relevant page rather than hiding it.
3. How we fact-check
Before an article publishes, it goes through a fact-check that covers four specific things: numbers, named products, claims attributed to sources, and anything that touches health, safety, or money.
Numbers get verified against primary sources whenever possible. If an article says "falls are the leading cause of injury for adults 65+," we link to the CDC page that supports it. If an article says "the Apple Watch Series 11 starts at $399," that's checked against Apple's current pricing page, not a secondhand report. If we can't find a primary source for a numeric claim, we either find one or we remove the claim.
Named products get verified for current availability, current specifications, and current pricing. Technology moves fast. A "2024 model" in a 2026 article is a red flag; a spec from a year-old review may no longer apply. We check.
Claims attributed to sources, organizations, people, studies, get their attribution checked. If we say "the NCOA found X," the NCOA really has to have found X, and ideally in a source we can link to.
Anything health, safety, or money-related gets the strictest treatment. These are YMYL topics, where a wrong claim can cause real harm. For those, we cite authoritative primary sources (the FDA, CDC, NIH, FCC, published peer-reviewed studies) directly in the article, and we include an editorial note that the content is not medical or financial advice.
4. Editorial independence
SeniorTechChoice earns money primarily through affiliate commissions. When a reader clicks an affiliate link in one of our articles and buys the product, we receive a small commission at no extra cost to the reader. That's disclosed on every page with affiliate links and in our full affiliate disclosure.
The critical point is this: affiliate relationships never influence which products we recommend, how we rank them, or what we say about them. Our ranking comes from the product's actual fit for adults 50+, as assessed through our Senior Tech Score methodology. A product that pays a higher affiliate commission does not rank higher. A product that pays no commission at all, because the manufacturer doesn't run an affiliate program, can absolutely still be our top pick. It has happened.
We maintain a separation in practice, not just in principle. Products are evaluated and articles are drafted before affiliate availability is even checked. If a product we've ranked #1 turns out not to offer an affiliate program, we still publish the recommendation. We don't reshuffle rankings to put commissionable products first.
We also do not accept money for placement in our comparison tables, research results, or buying guides. We do not run sponsored content, brand partnerships, or native advertising. The only commercial relationship we have with any product we cover is the standard affiliate link, and that's always disclosed.
5. Conflicts of interest
The most direct conflict to disclose: Mike H. uses technology personally and has opinions about it. If a product under review is one Mike personally owns, that's noted in the review. If a product is made by a company where Mike has a financial stake, we don't cover that product.
We don't accept free products from manufacturers for review. We buy what we need to reference, use information that's already publicly available, or clearly note when we're reasoning from documentation rather than personal experience. Free review units create implicit obligations that are hard to see and even harder to fully neutralize.
If a family member, friend, or professional connection is materially involved with a product or company we're covering, we disclose that in the article. If the connection is close enough that it could reasonably affect our judgment, we don't cover the product at all.
If we ever accept sponsorship, partnership, or promotional arrangements in the future, they will be clearly labeled as such, separated from editorial content, and disclosed at both the article level and on this page. The current answer is: we don't do that, and we'll update this section if that ever changes.
6. Corrections policy
Mistakes happen. When they do on SeniorTechChoice, we want them fixed quickly, visibly, and honestly.
If you spot an error, email us through the contact page. Every correction request is reviewed by Mike personally, usually within 48 hours. If the correction is confirmed, we update the article and note what changed and when.
For minor corrections (a typo, a broken link, a price that changed overnight), we update the article and refresh the "Updated" date in the byline. For substantive corrections (a factual error, a misattribution, a changed recommendation), we add a dated correction note at the end of the article explaining what the original text said and what changed. We don't silently rewrite history; if we got it wrong, the record reflects that.
We distinguish between corrections (we were factually wrong and fixed it) and updates (facts on the ground changed and we updated the article). Both get handled, but they're different categories, and we label them differently.
7. Sources and attribution
When we cite a statistic, a study, a government ruling, or an analysis from another publication, we link to the primary source. If the primary source sits behind a paywall, we link to an accessible secondary source that fairly represents the primary finding and note that the primary source is paywalled.
Priority order for sources, in roughly the order we prefer them: (1) direct primary documents (FDA 510(k) clearances, FCC filings, CDC datasets, peer-reviewed journals, government datasets), (2) official manufacturer documentation (product spec pages, support documentation, official press releases), (3) established independent reporting from credible outlets (major consumer and technology publications with their own editorial standards), (4) named individual testimony and testing from identifiable reviewers or experts.
We don't cite anonymous forum posts as if they were evidence. We don't cite AI-generated summaries as sources. We don't cite affiliate-marketing listicles even if they happen to have the number we wanted. Where possible, we quote the primary source directly. Where that would make the article unreadable, we paraphrase and link.
On YMYL articles (health, safety, finance), we go further: we maintain a visible Sources and References section at the end of the article with numbered citations, each linked to the primary source. That lets a careful reader verify every specific claim we made.
8. Expert review
SeniorTechChoice does not currently employ full-time credentialed reviewers. Mike H. is our editor; his background is product and technology, not medicine or audiology or certified financial planning.
This matters for YMYL content. When we write about medical alerts, hearing aids, fall detection, or any tech that sits at the intersection of consumer devices and health outcomes, we are clear about the boundary. Our articles synthesize authoritative sources (FDA, CDC, NIH, audiology organizations) and independent testing. They do not substitute for the judgment of a healthcare professional who knows the reader's specific situation.
Every YMYL-adjacent article carries an editorial note stating explicitly that the content does not constitute medical advice, and recommending readers consult their healthcare provider for medical-device decisions. This is not a disclaimer designed to avoid liability, it's an honest signal that our expertise has limits and readers should know where they are.
As the site grows, we intend to bring credentialed reviewers onto specific article categories, audiologists for hearing content, geriatricians or occupational therapists for fall-risk content, certified financial planners for any finance-adjacent topics. When we do, reviewer names, credentials, and review dates will appear on the article pages they've reviewed. Until then, we're transparent about the current limitation rather than claiming a level of expert review we haven't earned.
9. Reader feedback
Readers are welcome to contact us through the contact page with questions, corrections, suggestions, product recommendations, or complaints. Every message goes to Mike. Most get a personal reply within 72 hours; some take longer if they require research.
If you flag a factual error, we treat it as a correction request and follow the corrections policy above. If you flag a broader editorial concern (a perspective we missed, a group we overlooked, a tone that felt off), we take that seriously too. Some of the most valuable edits to articles on this site have come from readers pointing out things we got wrong or blind spots we didn't see.
If you have a product you'd like us to cover, we want to hear about it, particularly if it's something that serves adults 50+ well but isn't getting attention from the mainstream tech press. We cannot guarantee coverage of every suggestion, but all suggestions are read and considered.
What we will not do: retaliate against readers for raising concerns, quietly edit articles to make legitimate criticism look unfounded, or share reader contact information with anyone outside SeniorTechChoice. Reader privacy and reader trust are non-negotiable.
10. Updates and freshness
Technology moves fast, and stale articles actively mislead readers. We update content on three cadences:
- Monthly: Product scores on the most-visited buying guides and comparisons are re-checked for pricing, availability, and any significant product changes.
- Quarterly: Major category roundups (best smartwatches, best phones for hearing loss, etc.) are fully re-evaluated, with products added or removed as new models launch and older ones become discontinued.
- Event-driven: When something material happens, a recall, a major software update that changes a product's accessibility features, a policy change like the FDA's OTC hearing aid rule, we update affected articles as soon as we're aware of it.
Every article displays its "Published" date and, where different, its "Updated" date. The dates are real, not promotional. If you see an article dated from three months ago, it's because we checked it three months ago and determined the content was still accurate; we don't refresh dates to game search algorithms.
When we retire an article (because the underlying product is discontinued, or the topic is no longer relevant to our readers), we redirect its URL to the closest current replacement rather than deleting it. Readers who bookmarked the old URL still land somewhere useful.
Questions about this page?
These standards are a living document. If something we've described here isn't matching what you see in practice, or if you think we should add or change a standard, please email us. We'd rather hear about it than not.