Editorial Methodology: How We Research

Last updated September 28, 2026

Most product-advice sites want you to believe a team of experts personally tested everything they recommend. We think that claim deserves scrutiny — so here’s exactly how our content is produced, and what we explicitly do not claim.

Our sources, in order of trust

  1. Published manufacturer specifications. Pump flow charts, filter max-flow ratings, UV wattage tables, wattage labels. When we cite a number — like Oase’s Vitronic pricing or a turnover-rate rule — it comes from a spec sheet or published reference we can point to.
  2. Established pond-keeping references. The principles that show up consistently across decades of pond literature: turnover rates, the nitrogen cycle, why you rinse filter media in pond water. These are settled knowledge, not opinions.
  3. Community knowledge. Pond forums and keeper communities are where the real-world edge cases live — the “UV is sized by flow rate, not pond volume” confusion, the impeller wrapped in string algae. We treat forum consensus as a lead, not a fact, and cross-check it against specs and references before publishing.

What we explicitly do not do

How we handle estimates

Pond keeping involves genuine uncertainty — every pond is different, and manufacturers’ ratings assume ideal conditions. When we present a number that isn’t a published spec:

Corrections

If a spec changed, a number is wrong, or a guide led you astray, we want to know. Corrections are published promptly and dated. A guide that can’t be corrected isn’t a guide — it’s marketing.

Why this matters for an inherited pond

You’re making decisions about equipment you didn’t choose, for a pond you didn’t ask for, spending real money. You deserve to know whether advice comes from a spec sheet or someone’s anecdote. Our job is to make that distinction visible on every page — so you can size a pump, fix green water, or winterize with confidence in why the advice works, not just who said it.