Editorial methodology

This site is published by Keonex, a company that sells electronic shelf labels, and the whole methodology starts from that fact: every claim should be checkable without taking the publisher’s word for it. This page sets out the rules by which content is chosen, written, reviewed, corrected and updated, so you can judge whether we keep to them.

Rules that apply to every page

Each page answers one specific question and does so in its first lines, before any background. The detail, the tables and the conditions under which the answer stops being true follow. A list of sources closes the page, and two dates sit at the top: publication and last update.

Element	What you will find	What you will not find
Sources	A link to the original document behind each third-party figure	Unsourced numbers, “industry estimates”
Dates	Publication and last-update dates, both visible	Dates touched up without real changes
Prices	Ranges with their conditions	A single price presented as the market rate
Keonex	An explicit note whenever it is an interested party	Unvalidated claims about the company
Authorship	The editorial team and the reviewer, once one is recorded	Invented authors or fictitious profiles

How we treat sources

A third-party figure goes in only if we can link the document it comes from. We rank sources by their closeness to the fact:

1. Legislation and official documents: the legal text as published by the legislature or the official journal (EUR-Lex for EU law, legislation.gov.uk for UK law), not a blog’s summary of it.
2. Official bodies and public statistics, citing the series and the year.
3. Manufacturers’ technical documentation, for what a manufacturer can know first-hand (power use, radio frequency, sizes), but not for market claims about itself.
4. Trade and general press, when it reports a specific rollout or deal. We cite the article, with its date, and report what it says, not what it implies.
5. Analyst reports, only if the methodology can be inspected. The headline of a paywalled report is not enough.

Three more precautions. First, if a figure appears on many pages that all trace back to the same source, we count one source, not ten. Second, we put the date of the data next to the data, because a five-year-old estimate of battery life or display cost is not worth what it was. Third, when two serious sources disagree, we say so and show both rather than picking the convenient one.

Rules are cited by reference, and we separate what is binding from what a guidance document merely recommends. Where a rule differs from country to country, the page states only what has been checked for the country named. For a specific legal question, the right reference is a solicitor or lawyer; this site informs, it does not advise.

How price ranges are built

Quoting the price of an electronic shelf label without saying what it includes is the quickest way to mislead. So the ranges on this site follow four rules.

• Always an interval, with a lower and an upper bound, never a single figure that looks like a price list.
• Each end has a source and a date: a public catalogue, a tender with awarded prices, a procurement notice, a distributor’s published price list, or a calculation we declare as such.
• We say what is covered: labels only, or labels plus gateways, software, installation and service. Comparing projects only works if they cover the same scope, and the TCO calculator exists so that you can replace our assumptions with your own.
• Variables are kept apart: screen size, technology, volume, number of SKUs, type of contract. A range that mixes them all means nothing.

Keonex prices are not used as the source of any range unless the page says so explicitly. When there is no reliable public figure for a band, the page leaves it without a number and explains what would be needed to get one, instead of filling it with an unsupported estimate.

Use of artificial intelligence

We use AI tools to prepare drafts, suggest structures and translate between languages. A person checks every source, discards what does not hold up and decides what gets published. The page on how we use AI describes who does what.

What matters here is the standard. Google’s documentation says that using generative AI is not a problem in itself, that the key is value to the reader and checking accuracy before publishing, and it suggests explaining how content was created when readers might ask. It also defines scaled content abuse as generating many pages with the main purpose of manipulating rankings. Our rule is stricter than that minimum: a page is not published because a tool can produce it, but because it answers a question someone actually asks and we have sources for it.

Every page carries a review field. If it is empty, nobody has yet recorded a human review of that page and you should read it with that reservation.

Conflict of interest

Keonex makes and deploys electronic shelf labels, and that creates bias. These are the measures we take against it, ordered from most to least verifiable by you:

• The link is disclosed on the about this site page and in the legal notice, not hidden behind a neutral-sounding editorial name.
• Comparisons publish their criteria first. If a comparison includes Keonex, it says so on the first screen, and Keonex’s position is not decided by being the host.
• No superlatives about any brand, ours or others’, unless a cited source supports them.
• Calculations are editable. Anyone using a tool sees the assumptions and can change them.
• The commercial side is kept out. Keonex’s offers live on keonex.com and pharmacy retail on farmaconnect.es; only clearly labelled links to them appear here.
• Competitors are described from their public data, without attributing flaws we cannot cite.

If after reading a page you think it is biased, tell the editors. The more specific the complaint (which sentence, which figure), the sooner we can resolve it.

Corrections

A mistake is fixed on the page itself, not on a separate page almost nobody reads. The procedure:

1. Someone reports it, or we spot it, through the editorial contact in the legal notice.
2. It is checked against the original source, not against another page repeating the figure.
3. If the error changes the meaning of the answer (a figure, a rule, a statement about a company), it is corrected and a dated note at the foot of the page says what changed.
4. If it is a typo that does not alter the meaning, it is corrected and the date updated, without a note.
5. If we cannot confirm the figure, it is removed until we can.

Statements about third parties get special treatment. If a company named on the site believes its description is inaccurate and supplies a verifiable document, we correct it. If it merely finds the description unflattering, we keep what the source supports.

Update schedule

How often depends on the type of content, because not everything ages at the same rate.

Page type	Planned review	Reason
Regulation and prices	Every quarter	Rules get amended and prices move
Sectors and comparisons	Every six months	New rollouts and products appear
Guides and glossary	At least once a year	Concepts change slowly
Tools	When a base assumption changes	A calculation on stale data misleads

The “updated” date changes only when the content has been reviewed and something has been modified, not when the site is redeployed. If a review finds nothing to change, the date is left alone. This schedule is a working commitment, not a guarantee: if you see a page past its date, let us know.

Where to go next

For the vocabulary, see the glossary; for the starting point on the topic, the guide to what an electronic shelf label is.