These editorial guidelines were written by Saeed Darabi, founder of MoneyPantry, and apply to every article published on this site. Questions about our standards can be sent to: satrap@moneypantry.com
Editorial guidelines are the operating rules that govern how every article on MoneyPantry is conceived, written, reviewed, fact-checked, and kept up to date.
This page isn’t a vague promise. It’s the documented process I actually follow.
You deserve to know exactly how content gets made here before you decide whether to trust it.
If you want to understand why we have these standards (the values behind the process), that’s covered on our Ethics Policy page. This page is about the how.
A Note on Where MoneyPantry Stands Right Now
I want to be upfront about something before you read the rest of this page, because honesty is the whole point of having editorial guidelines in the first place.
For years, MoneyPantry had a small team of freelance writers who helped test platforms, sign up for apps, and verify whether sites actually paid.
Today, MoneyPantry is a one-man operation again.
Because of a recent drop in traffic and income, it’s just me, Saeed, doing the research, writing, updating, and testing.
That means I can’t claim to personally sign up for every single platform mentioned on this site. No one person could.
What I can tell you is this: I personally test many of them, especially the major survey sites, gig apps, and side hustles I’ve been using for nearly two decades.
For platforms I haven’t used directly, I rely on a combination of deep research, community feedback, and almost 20 years of experience in this space.
When I evaluate a platform I haven’t personally tried, I dig into:
- Real user experiences on Reddit, forums, and community threads
- Payment proof discussions from active users
- Patterns in BBB complaints and Trustpilot reviews
- Company history, ownership changes, and shutdown risks
- Payout thresholds, hidden fees, and terms most people miss
I combine that with lived experience: years of taking surveys, doing online gigs, freelancing, flipping items, and testing every kind of side hustle I could find when I was broke and working two jobs.
My goal is always the same: the most honest, practical evaluation possible.
I’m sharing this because I think it’s the right thing to do. No competitor publishes a disclosure like this. Most sites quietly remove any mention of team size and carry on as if nothing changed. That’s not how I want to run MoneyPantry.
Step 1: We Only Write About What Actually Helps
Every article on MoneyPantry starts the same way: with a real money problem someone is trying to solve. Not a keyword list. Not a trend.
A question a real person has, like “how do I make $200 this weekend?” or “is this survey site actually legit?”
I don’t write content just to fill space.
If an article isn’t going to help someone take a concrete step toward earning more, saving more, or avoiding a mistake, it doesn’t get published.
When I bring in outside writers (freelancers or guest contributors), I apply the same filter. I’m looking for people who write from real experience, not people who can research a topic from a distance. Someone covering gig apps should have driven for one. Someone writing about debt payoff should have done it. The content I’m proudest of on this site comes from people who’ve actually lived the thing they’re writing about.
That said, I won’t pretend I always have firsthand experience with every single platform that gets mentioned here. When I don’t, I say so, or I make clear the basis on which I’m evaluating it. See the Review Process page for exactly how that works.
Step 2: Every Article Is Reviewed by Me Before It Goes Live
This is the part I take most seriously, and it’s also the hardest to verify from the outside. So let me be specific about what it actually means.
Before any article is published on MoneyPantry, I personally read it. Not skim it. Read it. I check it against the following questions:
- Is every factual claim sourced, personally verified, or clearly attributed to research?
- Are specific numbers (earnings, fees, payout minimums, interest rates) accurate as of the publication date?
- Does this advice reflect what I would actually tell a friend who asked me the same question?
- Is there anything in this article I would be uncomfortable defending publicly or by name?
- Has the writer made clear how they know what they’re claiming to know?
- Is the tone helpful and honest? Not hyped up, not overly cautious. Just real.
If the answer to any of those questions is no, the article doesn’t go live as-is. I rewrite it, send it back, or in some cases, don’t publish it at all.
I’ve turned down articles that were well-written but made earnings claims I couldn’t verify. I’ve rewritten sections that understated risk because the writer was trying to stay positive. This review step is real, not a formality.
Step 3: We Fact-Check, and Then Check Again
Bad financial advice causes real harm. I’ve seen people lose money following tips from sites that didn’t bother to verify what they were publishing. That’s not going to happen here if I can help it.
Here’s how fact-checking actually works at MoneyPantry:
For financial figures (interest rates, cashback percentages, payout minimums, fee amounts): I verify directly against the product’s current terms page at the time of publication. I note the date of verification. If a rate or fee changes after publication, that’s what the update process (Step 4) is for.
For earnings claims (“you can make up to X per hour” or “this app pays $50 per survey”): I require either personal documentation, payment screenshots, or a clearly cited primary source. Vague “up to” claims without context get cut or rewritten with the actual conditions spelled out.
For platform legitimacy (whether a site is real, paying, and not a scam): I cross-reference BBB complaints, Trustpilot reviews, Reddit threads, payment proof screenshots from real users, and where possible, my own account history.
For opinions stated as facts: Any time a writer makes a comparative claim like “this is the best survey site for beginners,” I ask what evidence that’s based on and make sure the article presents it as a reasoned recommendation, not a universal truth.
We’re human. Mistakes happen. If you spot an error (a wrong number, an outdated claim, something that just doesn’t seem right), please let me know. I read every message and I take corrections seriously.
How I Use AI (and How I Don’t)
I want to be upfront about something a lot of sites won’t tell you: I do use AI tools as part of my workflow. But there’s a big difference between using AI as a writing tool and using it as a writer.
Here’s exactly where the line is for MoneyPantry.
I use AI for:
- Research and sourcing (finding data, platforms, and threads to investigate further)
- Outlining articles before I write them
- Formatting and structure suggestions
- Grammar, clarity, and flow improvements on drafts I’ve already written
I do not use AI for:
- Writing articles from scratch
- Generating recommendations or reviews
- Replacing my own fact-checking, testing, or lived experience
- Final publishing decisions
Every article on MoneyPantry is written, fact-checked, and approved by me. AI is a tool I use to work more efficiently. It is not the author, and it never replaces the firsthand experience and editorial judgment that this site is built on.
Step 4: We Keep the Content Up to Date
A financial tip that was accurate two years ago can be genuinely harmful today. Rates change. Apps shut down. Survey sites stop paying. Gig platforms change their fee structures. Keeping the content current isn’t optional. It’s part of the commitment.
Here’s how I approach it:
Rate-sensitive content (interest rates, cashback percentages, payout minimums, sign-up bonuses): Reviewed when I’m notified of changes, or at minimum every 90 days.
App and platform reviews: Reviewed every six months, or immediately if readers report significant changes (a payment delay, a policy update, an ownership change, a shutdown).
Evergreen guides (budgeting methods, debt payoff strategies, general savings advice): Reviewed annually.
Every updated article carries a visible “Last Updated” date at the top. If you’re reading an article and the update date is more than 12 months ago on a topic that involves rates, fees, or a specific platform, it’s worth checking whether things have changed. And feel free to contact me if you think it needs a refresh.
A note on scale: MoneyPantry has published over 2,000 articles since 2013. Running the site solo now, there will be articles that haven’t been updated as recently as I’d like. The financial world moves fast: apps change their payout structures, survey sites raise minimum thresholds, gig platforms adjust their fee models.
I can’t guarantee every single page reflects the latest changes in real time. What I can tell you is my priority order: anything involving specific rates, fees, platform availability, or earnings goes to the top of the update queue.
If you land on something that looks outdated, please contact me. Reader reports are genuinely how I find things that need attention first.
Our Corrections Policy
If we publish an error, here’s exactly what happens:
- The article is corrected as soon as the error is verified. I aim to do this within 2 business days of being notified.
- A visible correction notice is added near the relevant section: “Correction [Date]: This article previously stated [X]. The correct information is [Y].”
- For significant errors that affected financial advice (the kind where someone could have made a wrong decision based on what we published), I add an explanation of what changed and why.
I don’t silently edit articles and pretend the original version never existed. That’s not transparent, and transparency is the whole foundation of this site.
Found a mistake? Contact me here. I appreciate it more than you know.
How We Handle Affiliate Links and Sponsored Content
MoneyPantry makes money through affiliate commissions and display advertising. When you click a link to a product or service and sign up, we may earn a commission at no extra cost to you. This is how the site stays free.
Occasionally, I also accept sponsored content partnerships with companies I believe are genuinely useful to readers. When that happens, the post is clearly labeled as sponsored at the top. You will never have to guess whether something is paid for.
What doesn’t happen: companies paying to receive a positive review. My recommendations are based on research and experience, not the size of a commission. If something isn’t worth your time, I’ll say so. Full details are on our Advertising Disclosure page.
Our Editorial Independence
No advertiser, affiliate partner, or sponsored brand has any say over what gets published on MoneyPantry. None. The editorial decisions (what to cover, how to evaluate it, what to recommend) are mine alone.
I’ve walked away from affiliate deals because the product wasn’t good enough to recommend. I’ve published critical reviews of platforms that were paying me a commission, because the truth matters more than the payout. That’s not a talking point. It’s how this site has operated since 2013.
For more on the values behind these standards, see our Ethics Policy.
More on How MoneyPantry Works
- About MoneyPantry — Who founded this site and why
- Our Review Process — How we test and evaluate specific products and platforms
- Ethics Policy — The values behind everything we publish
- Advertising Disclosure — How the site makes money and what that means for you
- FAQ — Common questions about MoneyPantry answered
- Privacy Policy — How we handle your data
- Contact Page — To report an error, ask a question, or suggest a review
These Editorial Guidelines were last reviewed and updated: February 2026. MoneyPantry is operated by Money Pantry Media LLC, Florissant, MO.
