Last updated: August 23, 2026
This policy explains how Trazi approaches personal essays, audits, rankings, sourced explainers, updates and corrections.
1. Original purpose
Every article should have a reason to exist beyond occupying a search result or carrying advertising. For Trazi, that reason is usually one of three things: a specific personal record, a transparent comparison method, or a practical framework a reader can use to examine something in their own life.
2. Experience, fact and opinion are different
A first-person memory is presented as memory. A rating is presented as a judgment. A checkable claim — for example the history or current size of an organization — should be verified against a primary or credible source where possible. We do not convert one category into another by using overly confident language.
3. Rankings and counts need a visible method
When an article counts, grades or ranks something, readers should be able to understand what qualified for inclusion, what was excluded, and how the score was produced. Subjective scoring can still be useful, but the criteria should be clear enough that a reader can disagree intelligently or try a version of the exercise themselves.
4. Personal evidence has limits
Private notes, recollection, browser history, family interviews and one person’s observations can support a personal narrative. They do not establish population-level facts. Where a personal project has obvious limits — memory error, selection bias, changing conditions, privacy constraints — we aim to state them.
5. Privacy and people in stories
Personal writing often includes other people. We avoid publishing unnecessary private details such as precise home addresses, account information, private medical details or identifying information about people who are not public figures. Names or small identifying details may be generalized when that protects privacy without changing the substance of the piece.
6. Sources
Personal essays do not require a citation for every memory. External factual claims do. When a first-party source exists, we generally prefer it for matters such as an organization’s history, current membership, rules or official directory. Source links are for verification; the linked page can change after publication.
7. Editing and AI tools
Editing, research-organizing and technical tools may be used to help structure drafts, catch errors or maintain the site. They do not remove the need for human review. We do not treat automatically generated text as publish-ready, and we do not invent interviews, credentials, personal experiences or sources to make an article appear more authoritative.
8. Advertising separation
Advertising may support the site, but the editorial page should still make sense if every ad disappears. We do not create empty pages for ad placement, and advertising relationships should not determine an article’s conclusion.
9. Updates
A material update may change a title, add a methodology note, correct a sourced fact, improve navigation, or add context that was missing from the original version. A personal essay is not rewritten simply because the writer’s later opinion changed, but a clarification may be added when it changes how the piece should be understood.
10. Corrections
Substantive factual errors should be corrected when identified. See the Corrections Policy or contact us with the page URL, the claim in question and supporting information.