Editorial policy
What we will publish, what we will not, how we correct mistakes, and why a site that sells nothing can afford to be blunt about products.
Last updated

Independence
We sell no products. That is worth stating first because it is not the norm in this category. When we surveyed the publishers ranking for the main sauna and cold plunge terms, four of ten were companies selling the products they ranked — one guide was written by the founder and CEO of the brand it placed first — and none disclosed that prominently.
We have no stock, no manufacturer relationships, no sponsorships and no paid placements. Our only revenue is affiliate commission, set out in full in the affiliate disclosure, and commission rate plays no part in how anything is ranked.
Sourcing standards
- 1Every specification cites its source. Manufacturer pages, manuals, published standards or the seller's own listing — with the date we checked it. There are currently 173 citations across the site.
- 2Every physiological claim links to a specific study. Not "studies show", not "a growing body of research" — a named, linked paper. If we cannot link one, the claim does not get made.
- 3We state whether evidence is observational or interventional, in the sentence rather than in a footnote, because that distinction does most of the work in interpreting a finding.
- 4Where a figure is not published, we say "Not published" rather than estimating it. A blank cell honestly labeled beats an invented number.
- 5Where a competitor's guide is referenced, we identify it as seller-published if it is.
What we will never publish
- Fabricated reviews, testimonials, ratings or review counts. There are none anywhere on this site and there never will be.
- Invented prices. We do not print prices at all, because we run no live price feed and a stale number shown as current is worse than none.
- Invented ASINs or product links. Every product here was found in Amazon's own indexed listings, and every direct product link was confirmed against a live page during the build.
- Testing claims. We do not test hardware and no page will ever imply we do — no claim to have handled, benched, measured or trialed any product covered here.
- Credentials we do not hold. No certifications, no claimed review board, no clinical sign-off.
- Health overreach. No "detoxifies", no "cures", no calorie-burn figures, no claim that any product treats any condition.
- Tenure claims. No assertions of long service, seniority, or accumulated time in the category.
Corrections
If we get something wrong, we fix it, date the change, and describe what changed. We do not quietly amend a page and leave the date untouched — that is how a reader loses the ability to tell whether they read the current version.
Corrections get read before anything else that arrives through the contact form. If you have found a misread spec, a dead link, a figure that has moved, or a source that does not say what we say it says, tell us. You do not need to be polite about it.
Refresh cadence
| Cadence | What happens |
|---|---|
| Quarterly | Every roundup re-verified against live manufacturer specifications |
| Quarterly | Every product link re-checked to confirm it still resolves to a live listing |
| On any spec change | Page updated, change dated, noted in the Sources section |
| On any error found | Corrected, dated and described |
| Annually | Every cited study re-checked to confirm it still supports the claim made |
We do not restamp unchanged pages. A page's `lastmod` reflects a real edit, because a sitemap claiming everything changed every day is a sitemap search engines learn to ignore.
Who writes this
Sawyer V. writes everything here — an enthusiast who reads the manuals, compiles the specs and does the arithmetic. No credentials, no test lab, and no claim to either. Every editorial page carries that byline because a human byline over an anonymous organization is a coherence failure, and because someone should be accountable for what is on a page.
How rankings are decided
The criteria differ by category and are set out in full on the methodology page, along with the limits of spec-led ranking — which is the section no competitor in this category writes and the one we would most want you to read.
Two rules that apply to every ranking: every product card names who should not buy that product, including our top picks; and at least one pick in every roundup is one we advise against, with the reason. A roundup where everything is recommended is a catalog, not a ranking.
AI and how these pages are produced
Pages here are researched from primary sources — manufacturer specifications, listings and published papers — and the arithmetic is done and shown rather than asserted. Whatever tools are used in production, the standards on this page apply to the output: a claim without a source does not ship, and a figure without a provenance does not ship.
Conflicts of interest
We hold no equity in any manufacturer or retailer covered. We accept no free products, no loans and no review samples. No manufacturer has been given advance sight of a page, and none has been asked for one. If any of that ever changes, it will be disclosed on every affected page rather than in a footnote here.
Questions people actually ask
How do you decide what to recommend?
Do you correct mistakes?
Do manufacturers see pages before they publish?
Why do you not print prices?
Sources
- Federal Trade Commission — endorsement and testimonial guidance — checked Sep 7, 2026