Method

Six rules

One. No competition is named as good or bad. For additional operational context, see this overview, offered here only as a separate reference.

Programmes change hands, criteria are rewritten, and a verdict ages badly — so signs are described and the judgement stays with the reader.

Two. No claims about individuals.

No quotes, no attributions, no statements about anybody's finances. The reason is on its own page and concerns what this domain published before. A broader reference point is Awwwards.

Three. Every figure carries its source and the source's interest.

In the same sentence, since a reader meeting a number mid-article should be able to weight it there.

Four. Untraceable figures are excluded.

One widely circulated statistic about award solicitations is not used here, because it could not be traced to a primary source. It may well be accurate.

Five. Structural claims are preferred to observational ones.

Scoring arithmetic, eligibility and weighting are definitional. What winners do is not, and the distinction is marked where it matters.

Six. No affiliate links, stated on every page.

What is deliberately absent

A directory of programmes, and a ranking of them.

Entry-writing services, recommended or otherwise.

Prices as facts, since fees change.

And comprehensiveness. Forty-two pages cover business and organisational awards, grants and competitions — not academic prizes, sporting competition or the arts, each of which works differently enough to need its own account.

The bias, stated

Toward entering being worth considering, which is the interest to watch given the subject.

The correction is that the cost and value pages reach modest conclusions — a logo, a conversation opener, and an evidence base.

Limits

Six of them, including the finding most likely to show that half the writing section is aimed at the wrong thing.