Technical Writer HQ Editorial Standards and Values
Technical Writer HQ is a publication and learning platform for technical writers. My team and I built it to be the resource we wish we had when we were learning how to write great docs, work with engineers, and build careers in technical communication.
Our Commitment to Quality and Trustworthiness
We hold ourselves to a high standard because readers rely on us for guidance that affects their careers, their documentation, and sometimes their buying decisions. We aim to publish content that is clear, practical, and grounded in real technical writing work, not generic advice.
We also care about trust. If we cannot stand behind a claim, we do not publish it. This commitment is part of how we think about editorial standards in the same spirit as other practitioner-led publications.
Expertise and Authoritative Reporting
Our content is written and edited by people who have done the work. I am Josh Fechter, the founder of Technical Writer HQ, and I have written tutorials, manuals, handbooks, and other technical content professionally.
When we publish factual statements that matter, we prioritize primary sources such as official documentation, standards bodies, and reputable datasets. For career outlook and job-market context, we reference authoritative sources like the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics when relevant.
Fair and Inclusive Content Production
Technical writing is global, and there is no single “correct” path into the field. We write with an inclusive mindset and avoid gatekeeping language.
When advice is region-specific, such as hiring norms, salary expectations, or legal requirements, we try to say that explicitly so readers can adapt the guidance to their context.
Independence and Editorial Integrity
Our editorial decisions are made for readers first. We do not let outside interests dictate what we publish, how we rank tools, or what conclusions we reach.
If we make a recommendation, it is because we believe it is genuinely helpful for the use case we are describing, not because someone paid for placement.
Commitment to Useful, Practical Insights
We focus on the “how,” not just the “what.” If we publish a guide, we want you to be able to apply it immediately, whether that means improving your doc workflow, collaborating better with SMEs, or preparing for interviews.
We also write in a human voice. Technical writing is already serious enough. If we can make it clearer and less intimidating, we will.
Rigorous Fact-Checking
Fact-checking is a core part of our editorial process. We verify names, definitions, workflows, pricing, feature claims, and anything that is likely to change over time.
When something cannot be verified confidently, we either reframe it as opinion and label it as such, or we remove it.
How We Handle Tool Reviews and Comparisons
When we publish tool content, we aim to be specific about what the tool is good at, what it is bad at, and who should skip it. We avoid rewriting marketing pages.
Because tools change quickly, we revisit key reviews and comparisons to update details like pricing, plan limits, and feature availability when we become aware of changes.
Affiliate Links, Sponsorships, and Disclosures
Some pages may include affiliate links. That means we may earn a commission if you purchase through a link, at no extra cost to you.
We do not accept pay-to-rank placements disguised as editorial recommendations. If a page is sponsored or a partnership materially affects a piece of content, we disclose it clearly.
AI Policy
We treat AI as a tool, not an author. We may use it for brainstorming, outlining, or clarity edits, but we do not outsource responsibility for accuracy to a model.
A human editor is accountable for what we publish. If AI meaningfully contributes in a way that affects reader trust, we disclose it.
Corrections and Updates
If you find an error, we want to fix it. The simplest way to improve a publication is to listen to readers who actually use the content.
We update posts when information becomes outdated and we correct mistakes when they are verified.
Our Editorial Staff
Technical Writer HQ is led by me, Josh, with support from a team of editors and contributors who help research, refine, and maintain our content standards.
We love feedback. If you have a correction, concern, or topic idea, contact us at community@technicalwriterhq.com
