A Message from Our Founder, Anand Shimpi
There's a spectrum of coverage when it comes to any product or technology. Go too far to one side and you end up with superficial content that's hardly better than a press release. End up too far on the opposite side however and you end up with an article that either takes too long to produce or isn't accessible to the majority of readers. Our goal is to end up somewhere in between, erring on the side of being extremely thorough wherever possible.
You should be able to trust in our content, as a result we have strict policies against making claims without having sufficient data or other support for those claims. We do all of our own testing in house using methodologies that we either describe in detail on the site or make publicly available in another form (e.g. ask and you shall receive).
We employ the scientific method in all of our endeavors. Ensuring reliability by repeating tests multiple times, checking results against control groups and implementing sound testing methodologies. We create the vast majority of our own test suites using both in-house and industry standard benchmarks. We also put a lot of effort into ensuring that the results published in our reviews track with the real world user experience of the products we review. In many cases the majority of the test results we generate never make their way onto the site, they're simply used by our reviewers to better understand the product being evaluated to provide you with better overall content.
Our reviews incorporate a mixture of objective and subjective based analysis, the balance varying where appropriate. We are not a site that exclusively relies on data based comparisons but also deliver honest user experience evaluations as well. Some reviews lend themselves to data driven analysis more than others (e.g. CPU review vs. smartphone review), but we always attempt to provide both in our coverage. We fundamentally believe that you need both to accurately portray any product. Numbers are great for comparative analysis, but without context they can be meaningless. Similarly, personal opinions are great to help explain what owning a product may be like, but without data to back up some claims the review lacks authority (e.g. average vs. good battery life begs to be quantified).
We are a very small team for a publication of our size. We are human. We make mistakes. We gladly welcome criticism from our readers and vendors alike. Seeking perfection doesn't mean being perfect from the start, it means being able and willing to improve when faced with evidence that you're not perfect. We feel strongly about this - negative feedback is tough to hear, but as far as we're concerned it's free education. If there's validity in a complaint about something we've done, we will take it to heart and act upon it. We rarely ban commenters in our articles (99.9999% of banned commenters are spammers). While we would appreciate it if you are respectful to our writers when commenting, you won't be banned for expressing your feelings about something we've written - as nice or as harsh as you may be.
Continuing with our pursuit of building trustworthy content, we almost always refuse to republish industry rumors unless we have sufficient internal evidence in support of the rumor. Our readers should be able to trust that they're reading accurate content on the site and haphazardly publishing rumors runs contrary to that goal. There is a lot of traffic and potential revenue in playing the rumor game, but we ultimately believe that it does a disservice - especially considering that often times rumors are seeded in the industry for ulterior motives.
The majority of what we review is provided directly by the manufacturer of the product. The product samples are delivered to our reviewers with the expectations of us providing a fair, thorough review. There is never any implicit guarantee of positive or negative, just that the review will be done as well as we can.
In the early days, when we were a much smaller site, manufacturers would threaten to withhold future review samples in response to a negative review (not so blatantly as that of course). We have quietly lost and gained the support of manufacturers throughout the years based on reviews. Especially in our earlier years, we've had a number of arguments with manufacturers who dare attempt to either knowingly deceive our readers or use advertising dollars or product support to influence our reviews.
Today, we are large enough to avoid these petty discussions of withholding review samples. Most manufacturers know that one way or another we'll get our hands on a product for review and don't try to play these sorts of games. Rarely we are faced with a manufacturer or advertiser who is looking to influence our content. We have a firm internal policy in place to deliver honest, balanced reviews to the best of our ability - regardless of external pressures. Fortunately, as we mentioned earlier, we have been around long enough and are large enough to avoid this being an issue in the vast majority of situations.
Advertising & Affiliate Commissions
Like other news publications since the beginning of time, writing about the world is both a business and a craft. Our goal is to get the best editors we can in order to craft you the best articles that we can, and at the same time stay out of the business of the editors so that they are free to do what is best. That said, as a site available to free across every corner of the globe, we have to make AnandTech work as a business, and you are the most important part of that.
Because AnandTech is available for free, we draw our revenue from a combination of advertising and affiliate sales commissions. AnandTech is a business, and while our publisher must at the end of the day balance the books, we, the editorial team behind the site, focus strictly on content for you, our readers. To accomplish this, we keep advertising and editorial strictly separated; the editorial firewall means that other than the editor-in-chief, the rest of the editors are not part of the discussion on revenue. They do not know who is buying advertising, and their only goal is to produce content that satisfies our readers. By producing good content that is informative and useful to our readers – to encourage them to visit the site again and again – we can have a free site paid for by advertising while respecting the editorial firewall.
At the same time however, in recent years and like so many other sites, we have needed to cope with a softening advertising market and the rise of ad blocking. While we always appreciate it if you would whitelist AnandTech, we will not punish you for doing so. It is our job to make you want to support AnandTech and see value in what we do.
Finally, along with advertising we augment our revenue with affiliate commissions. By collecting commissions, we are able to compensate for the drawbacks in advertising, and ideally, avoid taking on yet more ads. Links and widgets are present in many of our articles linking to retailers such as Newegg and Amazon. Like advertising, our editors are firewalled from this, and these devices are added to articles as a matter of policy. Individual editors do not benefit from affiliate commissions, and above all we strive to always write the truth about a product; to remove as much potential bias as humanly possible.
As making a living on the Internet is an always-shifting landscape on a still-young medium, we still seek to achieve a better balance, and reader feedback is always welcome on these matters. And in the meantime, if you read an article and enjoy it, or find yourself wanting to buy a product listed in it, we would of course appreciate it if you could click on an ad or follow our affiliate links.
AnandTech is primary a review and analysis website, however we also understand the need to report on smaller items that may not warrant our normal long form coverage. At the same time, these smaller news stories are deserving of the same editorial treatment as our longer articles. To service this need we have created a short form content section called Pipeline.
Pipeline's goal is to provide the same level and quality of AnandTech editorial, but for content that's better serviced by short form content (e.g. news releases, small announcements, etc…). The Pipeline team is in direct communication with the Reviews team (many of the team members have roles on both teams) and are given the same high level direction (e.g. no rumors, no sensationalism, etc…) as the rest of the AnandTech Editors.
We believe there's a need for both long and short form content, but you don't have to sacrifice quality to deliver both. We have no internal guidelines for how many Pipeline stories we post per day - we strive to post content of value, just as we do with our reviews.
Ryan Smith - Editor in Chief, GPUs, Mac, Business
Ian Cutress - Senior Editor, CPUs & Motherboards
Joshua Ho - Senior Editor, Smartphones & Tablets
Ganesh TS - Senior Editor, Storage, NAS, HTPC, Media Streamers
Johan De Gelas - Senior Editor, Enterprise, Cloud Computing, IT/Datacenter
Brett Howse - Senior Editor, Laptops, Windows, Smartphones
E. Fylladitakis - Editor, Cases, Cooling, PSUs, Keyboards
Brandon Chester - Editor, Tablets & Smartphones
Matt Humrick - Editor, Smartphones
Billy Tallis - Editor, Solid State Storage/SSDs
Daniel Williams - Editor, GPUs
Anton Shilov - Editor, News
AnandTech would like to thank the following partners for supplying software and tools used in our reviews: