How this desk works
Editorial policy
The standard every page on this site is held to, written as conditions a page either meets or does not.
What this desk is
The desk that publishes these pages is a publication. It does not sell AI video software, it is not owned by anyone who does, and it takes no commission on any tool it writes about.
It has also not used those tools. There is no trial account behind these pages, no avatar and no footage, and any sentence here that read like first-hand experience would be invented.
- That makes this desk unreliable on questions of feel: how pleasant an editor is to work in, how an avatar reads to a particular audience.
- It makes the desk useful on questions of record: what a vendor publishes, what it costs per unit of output, and what someone who did run the tool reported.
How a claim gets published
Three conditions, and a page that cannot meet all three does not ship.
- Every figure carries a source and a date. A price with no date is a claim that cannot go stale, which is the problem rather than the solution.
- Every judgement about a product carries a named source. Not "reviewers say" but the person, the publication and the date, in the sentence that makes the claim.
- Arithmetic is printed, not asserted. Where this site derives a number, the inputs and the assumption behind them appear beside the result.
Where a cited reviewer earns commission on what they recommend, that disclosure travels with the quote. It is not a reason to discount them, and it is a fact a reader is entitled to weigh.
What this desk will not publish
The refusals are as much a part of the standard as the requirements, because the missing pieces are where most category content goes wrong.
- A score it cannot defend. No stars, no marks out of ten, no ranked best-of list of tools nobody here has run.
- A promo code. An expired code presented as current is worse than no answer, and codes expire faster than pages are re-read.
- A claim from a source a reader cannot open. If a rating sits behind a login, this site says so rather than citing it anyway.
- An invented experience. Including the small ones: no "in our testing", no "we found", no hands-on framing of a page assembled from published material.
Money, and what it cannot buy
This site sells guest placements and sponsored placements. That is its revenue, it is disclosed on the disclosure page, and the rules around it are short.
- No vendor pays for a position in a comparison, a price table or a review.
- No payment removes an unflattering fact from a page.
- Every paid piece is labelled on the page itself and carries the link attribute the placement agreement requires.
A paid piece is still held to the sourcing rules above. Being paid for is not a reason to publish something that would otherwise fail them, and the guidelines page says what a submission has to carry before it is considered at all.
Why the standard is written as conditions
A values statement cannot be failed. Conditions can, which is the point of writing them this way: each one is a question with a yes or no answer that a reader can check on the page in front of them.
- Is there a date beside that price?
- Is there a name beside that judgement?
- Is the arithmetic behind that derived figure printed anywhere?
Three noes and the page should not have shipped. That is a more useful test than any promise about integrity, because it does not require trusting the person who wrote the promise.
Who this desk is accountable to
Readers, and specifically readers who check. Everything on this site is derived from public pages that anyone can open, and the arithmetic is deliberately simple enough to repeat.
The about page carries the fuller account of what the desk is and is not entitled to claim, and it makes the same admission this page opens with.
Corrections
Report one through the contact page, with the page and the specific claim. A correction that names the sentence gets fixed faster than one that names the page.
Corrected pages are edited in place and the modification date changes. Where the correction changes a conclusion rather than a detail, the change is stated on the page rather than made quietly.
Re-verification
Prices are re-read quarterly. Every price table carries the date it was last read, and that date is the warranty: where a vendor page disagrees with a page here, the vendor is right and this site is stale.
A stale page is treated as a defect rather than as an inevitability. The date exists so a reader can judge that for themselves rather than taking the desk's word for how current it is.
- Two of the three vendors this site prices changed a published figure within the last year, and one of them is currently advertising the fact on its own page.
- Quarterly is a floor rather than a schedule, and a reader who spots a change first is doing the desk a favor.
Work in AI video?
We take pitches from people building and using these tools. Tell us what you know that the vendor pages do not.
Pitch a guest postStill comparing?
Every figure on this site carries the page it was read from and the date it was read.
See the pricing deskBy the Humva Desk. Checked against primary sources and updated .