is committed to the highest editorial and ethical standards in providing online content relating to Jewelry buying. 


  1. Introduction 


We are committed to providing objective, evidence-based and trustworthy information and guidance on all aspects of jewelry and the buying process. 


The following sections set out our editorial principles, standards and processes: 


  1. Principles 


2.1  Accuracy


Our content will be accurate, balanced and transparent. Information given will be judged against the best available scientific evidence and sources named wherever possible. Where content contains conjecture or opinion, this will be clearly indicated. 


2.2  Accountability is accountable to its audiences and will deal fairly with them. We will be open to admitting mistakes and encourages a culture of learning via user feedback. In addition, the editorial processes will be transparent.   


2.3  Serving the public will put its audiences’ interests first when sourcing and developing content. We will consult with relevant professional bodies, charities and other interest groups, but serving our clients’ interests will remain paramount.   


2.4  Taste and decency


All content on our website will be suitable for a general audience and will not include reasonably deemed offensive material. 


2.5  Impartiality and diversity of opinion


Our content will be objective, impartial and even-handed. Where views differ, and no scientific consensus can be found, we will reflect all significant strands of opinion and state the uncertainty clearly. 


2.6  Privacy


We are committed to maintaining strict privacy controls. Personal information, including any correspondence, will not be disclosed without the user’s prior explicit consent unless we are required to do so for legal reasons (such as a Court Order) or disclosure is in the public interest. Permission will be sought from service users where photographic images are used. 


2.7  Funding advertising funds  our online communications. 


  1. Standards has a dedicated team of editors. We have a clear mandate to produce accurate, balanced and transparent information. Accordingly, no website editor, author, or administrator will be asked or is permitted, to provide favoured treatment to any partner organisation, and all editorial staff must fully disclose any financial or other interests they may have in any penalty removal-related companies or organisations. 


In accordance with our policy, all staff, including editorial staff, are required to disclose any conflict of interest with other organisations, including marketing-related companies. 


Our Chief Executive Officer investigates any potential conflict of interest or complaints to; these will be highlighted by the website editor, who will investigate the matter and reach a decision. In addition, where outside organisations or individuals produce content, we require that such agents disclose outside interests similarly. 


  1. Staff Training


All editorial staff are given training to ensure editorial standards are met. 


  1. Editorial process 


5.1 Phase 1: Research


The evidence-based knowledge that informs all our content is derived from the direct experience of people involved in penalty removal services. In pulling together this knowledge to provide users with a rounded and balanced package of material on a particular subject, our Digital Marketing Agency requires its content authors to consult the following resources:  For peer-reviewed research, they consult the National Library for Health (NLH), which has developed a system for classifying different types of research evidence with respect to their validity. For knowledge of direct experience, they consult people with direct and current experience in dealing with Google penalty removal services, National charities with recognised expertise and specialist interest, and People who may be directly affected by a topic or issue.  


5.2  Phase 2: Production


Once a piece of content has been drafted, it is edited by a member of the  our content team:  


It is checked for:  







Written content is then passed on to the website Editor to be checked for:


  • Common factual errors 
  • Spelling 
  • Grammar 
  • Adherence to house style 
  • Overall presentation 
  • Clarity 


5.3  Phase 3: Policy sign-off


The Chief Executive Officer must approve our policies before they are published online.


5.4  Phase 4: Review of content  


The content on the website is reviewed systematically. Major content is reviewed annually, and content less susceptible to change in knowledge and evidence is reviewed at least every two years. 


Comments from users and stakeholders on published content are considered on a day-by-day basis as they arrive, and content reviewed and amended immediately if necessary. 


  1. Appeals procedure

In the unlikely event of a complaint about online content that the editor cannot resolve, the matter will be escalated to the Chief Executive.