Editorial Standards for Clearer Forex Education.
We separate sourced facts, calculations, interpretations, and illustrative examples so readers can understand what a claim means and where its limits begin.
What this editorial policy covers.
ForexShared publishes educational explanations, calculators, templates, comparisons, and planning resources. The purpose is to improve understanding and review quality, not to direct personal trading decisions.
What we publish
- Market concepts and mechanism-based explanations
- Calculators, templates, and usage guidance
- Comparisons with stated criteria and limitations
- Illustrative examples that are labeled clearly
What we do not promise
- Personalized financial or investment advice
- Signals, guaranteed setups, or certain outcomes
- Profit claims without a verifiable basis
- Anonymous opinions presented as established facts
Forex markets involve risk. Content, tools, and templates are provided for education and planning support and cannot account for an individual reader's objectives, finances, broker conditions, or tolerance for loss.
The standards applied before publication.
Every page has a different purpose, but these four editorial tests remain consistent.
Explain before persuading
The reader should understand the mechanism, terminology, and tradeoffs before encountering a conclusion or call to action.
Source material facts
Rules, specifications, definitions, and factual claims should point to a relevant source when a source is necessary for verification.
Separate fact from interpretation
An interpretation should be framed as analysis, with its assumptions and reasoning visible instead of being presented as certainty.
Keep limits near the claim
Important caveats should appear where the reader needs them, not be hidden behind a distant general disclaimer.
Different claims require different support.
A cited fact, a calculation, an interpretation, and an illustration are not interchangeable. The page should make the distinction visible.
Our evidence ladder
The goal is not to make every paragraph look academic. The goal is to give each important statement the type of support it actually needs.
When a claim cannot be verified directly, it should be narrowed, labeled as interpretation, or removed.
From page purpose to maintained resource.
The workflow is designed to catch scope drift, weak evidence, unclear assumptions, and risky wording before publication.
Define the page job
Identify the reader's question, the central topic, the intended outcome, and what the page should not attempt to answer.
Gather appropriate support
Collect the definitions, official specifications, market context, calculations, or examples needed for the page's actual claims.
Draft the mechanism clearly
Explain how the concept works, distinguish inputs from outputs, and avoid certainty that the available evidence cannot support.
Challenge claims and boundaries
Check sourcing, calculations, assumptions, commercial context, risk language, and whether the conclusion is stronger than the evidence.
Publish, monitor, and revise
Review meaningful reader reports, correct material errors, and revisit content when rules, specifications, or core evidence change.
A claim must survive four questions.
This test applies to market explanations, calculator outputs, comparisons, and performance-related statements.
A historical tendency can support further review. It cannot prove that the same outcome will occur in a future market environment.
Trust depends on what happens after publication.
Editorial responsibility includes correcting material errors and making commercial context visible when it is relevant.
Corrections process
We review the affected claim, calculation, citation, or tool logic. When a material correction is required, we aim to update the page and directly related references, with a visible note when the change is significant.
Commercial disclosures
If a resource contains an affiliate relationship, sponsorship, or other relevant commercial connection, that context should be disclosed near the affected recommendation or comparison.
Editorial independence boundary
A commercial relationship should not determine the comparison criteria, factual explanation, risk framing, or conclusion. If a relationship creates a limitation that matters to the reader, that limitation should be stated.
Editorial policy FAQs.
How does ForexShared choose sources?
We aim to prioritize primary or official sources for definitions, rules, platform specifications, and policy details. When interpretation is required, we identify the reasoning, assumptions, and limits instead of presenting it as an established fact.
How does ForexShared describe backtesting or historical review?
We distinguish between manual chart review, coded historical analysis, and live observation where relevant. Historical behavior is presented with its method and limitations and is not treated as proof of future performance.
How are affiliate relationships handled?
If a page contains an affiliate or commercial relationship, the relevant context should be disclosed near the recommendation or comparison. Commercial relationships should not determine the criteria, evidence, or conclusion.
What happens when an editorial mistake is found?
The affected claim, calculation, citation, or page is reviewed. If a correction is required, we aim to update the content and any directly related references, with a visible correction note when the change is significant.
Explore the content these standards support.
Use the Knowledge Hub for structured forex explanations or visit the Blog for current educational articles and practical analysis.