Skip to main content
Check Compress PDF Sign up

Publication standards

PDFCheck Editorial Policy

PDFCheck publishes practical PDF guidance and product information only after the record has enough original value, evidence, limitations, and editorial accountability for public discovery.

Last updated: October 20, 2026

What readers can expect

Useful before indexable

A route existing in the application does not make it ready for search. Draft, incomplete, duplicated, unavailable, and review-only records remain outside public discovery.

Evidence before claims

Feature, compatibility, workflow, and safety claims must be supported by product behavior, repeatable tests, or identified primary sources. Unverified assumptions are not published as facts.

Limits are part of the answer

Public content explains what PDFCheck can and cannot determine. Automated checks are signals, not guarantees of authenticity, legality, accessibility, archival compliance, or professional suitability.

Publication workflow

The public state is an explicit approval, not the default result of creating a route, record, file, translation, or AI draft.

  1. 1. Research and draft

    The author defines the user question, creates original explanatory content, records sources, and separates observed product behavior from interpretation.

  2. 2. Test and challenge

    The reviewer checks the relevant workflow, metadata, files, links, structured data, mobile rendering, and stated limitations. Test evidence must be specific enough for another reviewer to repeat.

  3. 3. Editorial approval

    A named account or accountable editorial role records approval and a timestamp. Publication also stores a content fingerprint so later material edits cannot silently reuse an older review.

  4. 4. Publish and monitor

    Only final approved records may enter indexes, related-content links, navigation, hreflang, or XML sitemaps. Corrections and material changes return the record to review.

Quality gates by content type

Guides and articles

Each locale is reviewed separately. Public front matter records final status, reviewer, review time, evidence, and the approved content fingerprint. Missing or stale metadata keeps the file out of indexes, sitemaps, hreflang, and related-article discovery.

Tool pages

Each tool page explains what the tool checks, how it works and what it cannot tell you, based on the tool's own code and measured sample files. When a tool's behaviour, limits or file retention changes, its reference section is updated in the same release. Findings such as AI-generator matches or PDF/A screening results are described as indicators, not as proof or certification.

AI-assisted content

AI may help with drafting or translation, but it cannot approve or publish its own output. AI-assisted records must retain provider, model, and generation provenance where the publication gate requires it. A reviewer must approve the final output after the latest generation event; regenerating or materially editing it invalidates that approval.

Localization

English is the reference version of every page. Tool pages are also available in ten other languages so visitors can use the tools in their own language; those translations are marked noindex, carry no hreflang links and are left out of the sitemaps. A translated page is opened to search only after its exact path and language have their own review record (reviewer, review time, evidence and content fingerprint). Today that applies to the homepage and the AI detection page in German, Spanish, French and Italian. Translated guides and other pages without a review record redirect to the English page.

Corrections and material updates

Material edits include changes to claims, sources, limitations, instructions, metadata, template fields, downloadable files, or AI-generated content. These changes invalidate the prior review. Small typographic corrections that do not change meaning may retain review only when the recorded fingerprint is deliberately renewed by an editor.

Commercial independence

Editorial approval is separate from commercial decisions. A page is not published or kept in search because it might earn revenue, and paid plans do not change how a tool's findings and limits are described. PDFCheck does not guarantee search visibility.

Who is responsible

Eimantas Kasperiūnas, founder of PDFCheck and director of UAB BusinessPress (Kaunas, Lithuania), is the editor of record. He approves every public guide, methodology page and tool description, and his name and review date are stored with each published article. Guides are written from the tools' own code, sample files and primary sources such as the PDF specification and the documentation of Ghostscript, Poppler and qpdf. Screenshots on articles are taken from PDFCheck itself.

Who operates PDFCheck

Report a problem

If a page contains an inaccurate claim, an outdated source, duplicated material, or a missing limitation, use the contact page and include the exact URL and the statement that needs review.

Contact PDFCheck