Unevidenced awards
No ranking, accolade or 'editor's pick' without a link to the publication that gave it. None currently exist for this site, so none appear.
What We Will Not Publish
Sourcing rules are easy to write and hard to keep. The useful half of this page is the list of things we refuse to print.
Every factual claim here is traceable to a named source, marked unconfirmed, or removed. There is no fourth category, and that rule is what most of this site's editing time goes on.
- No award, ranking or media citation appears without a link to it.
- No testimonial appears until it is real and attributable.
- Commercial relationships are stated on the page where they apply.
Six things we will not print
Each of these appears routinely on competing sites. That is precisely why they are listed.
Invented press coverage
Naming a publication that has not covered you is the most damaging thing a travel site can do, and the easiest to check.
Fabricated testimonials
A review page stays empty until there are real, attributable reviews to put on it.
Made-up statistics
'Forty-five percent of our guests' is unverifiable by definition. Figures here come from counted sources or they do not appear.
Invented staff
No biographies, no headshots, no years-of-experience totals we cannot evidence.
Borrowed credentials
Operator certifications belong to operators. We describe what to ask for; we do not claim them.
Where a fact has to come from
In order of preference: the operator's own published page, the park or government authority that issues the figure, and a named primary document. A number appearing on three other guide sites is not a source; it is usually the same unsourced number three times. Where we use a secondary source, the page says so.
Anything we cannot place in one of those categories is labelled unconfirmed, on the page, in the sentence that uses it.
How this site is funded
Enquiries are passed to operators, and the operator pays for the introduction. You pay the operator's rate — nothing is added for having come through this site. That relationship is why the comparison pages here go out of their way to argue against chartering where a cheaper option genuinely serves you better: a guide that only ever says yes is not a guide.
What happens when we are wrong
Not an appendix at the bottom of the page. A change to the page itself.
- 0
- Awards claimed
- 0
- Testimonials published so far
- 3
- Source tiers, in order of preference
- Public
- How corrections are made
Standards, answered
Why are there no reviews on this site?
Because there are no real, attributable ones yet. A testimonial section stays empty rather than being filled with plausible-sounding quotes.
Do you accept payment for coverage?
Operators pay for introductions when an enquiry is passed on. No operator pays to be described more favourably, and the comparison pages argue against charters where that is the honest answer.
Why do some figures say 'unconfirmed'?
Because we could not trace them to a primary source. Labelling that is more useful than quietly presenting an estimate as a fact.
You cite one broker's catalogue a lot. Why?
Because it is the largest set of Komodo vessels publishing rates that we could read directly. The page that uses it says so, including that it is one broker's view.
How do I report an error?
Use the contact page. Corrections are made to the page itself, with the reason recorded.
Hold us to this
A standards page nobody checks is decoration. If we have broken one of these rules, that is worth telling us.