Editorial policy
Quick answer
Nothing here is based on in-person evaluation, no figure is invented to fill a gap, and pages recommend against purchases where that is the honest answer.
No fabricated evaluation
No page on this site claims to have used the equipment it describes. Every recommendation is built from published manufacturer specifications, material data sheets and owner reports. This is stated on the pages themselves rather than buried here.
No invented figures
Where a number is not known, it is not supplied. Calculators return no answer with an explanation instead of a plausible guess, and reference tables mark a combination as unachievable rather than filling the cell. Every figure is labelled as either a published standard or a community convention so the reader knows what it rests on.
Safety guidance is not hedged
Statements about lasering PVC, matching eyewear to wavelength, resin handling and ventilation are written as facts because that is what they are. They are not softened to avoid discouraging a purchase, and where a machine cannot do a job safely the page says so plainly.
Recommending against a purchase
Every roundup names who should not buy the expensive option. Every build lists what to skip. The break even calculator exists partly to tell readers that owning a printer will never pay back for their volume, which is a correct and common answer. This costs the site money and is the reason the rest is worth reading.
Corrections
Product data is regenerated from live retailer responses rather than edited by hand, so listing changes are picked up at the source. If you find an error in a calculation or a safety statement, the contact page is the fastest way to reach someone about it.
Common questions
Do you ever claim to have tested equipment?
Never, and the phrasing is checked automatically rather than left to memory. Recommendations are built from published manufacturer specifications, material data sheets and owner reports compared against each other. A site claiming in-person evaluation of dozens of machines is usually telling you a story, and the honest framing is more useful anyway because it tells you exactly what the recommendation rests on.
What happens when you do not know a figure?
The page says so, or the calculator returns no answer with an explanation of why. There is no estimate filling the gap and no plausible looking placeholder. This applies most visibly to laser settings, where a combination a machine genuinely cannot do is shown as unachievable rather than given a number that would imply it works.
Are recommendations influenced by commission?
The selection logic is written into the site rather than chosen per product, and several pages recommend spending less or nothing at all. A stock hotend is described as fine for PLA and PETG, a CO2 laser is described as the wrong purchase unless clear acrylic is a requirement, and one calculator exists largely to tell some readers not to buy a printer.
How are errors handled?
Product data comes from a live retailer API and is regenerated rather than hand edited, so a stale price or a changed listing is corrected at the source. Calculation logic is covered by an automated self test that exercises the failure paths as well as the normal ones, because the no-answer branches are exactly where a wrong figure can sit unnoticed for a long time.