How we decide what to publish.
A golf swing article is easy to write badly: borrow a number from another article that borrowed it from a third, add confident adjectives, publish. This page is the set of rules we hold ourselves to instead — and it is a commitment, not a disclosure.
Last updated
Every number has a source
If a biomechanics claim carries a figure — a degree, a ratio, a percentage — it is linked to a source you can open and check. If we cannot find a real, findable source for a number, we delete the number and write the sentence without it.
We never invent a statistic
No fabricated study, no made-up sample size, no invented quote, no imaginary expert. A plausible-sounding number with no source behind it is worse than no number at all, because it looks like evidence.
We never invent a person
Content is published by the SwingOK team as an organisation. We do not attach credentials — a PGA classification, a doctorate, a tour résumé — to a byline for someone who does not exist.
Uncertainty is stated, not smoothed over
Where the research genuinely disagrees, or where a range varies by player and club, we say so. "Tour players are typically around 3:1" is a more honest sentence than a false decimal.
Who writes and reviews this content
Everything published on this site is written and reviewed by the SwingOK Team and published under the SwingOK name. The organisation is the author of record, which is also how it is declared in the structured data on every article page. There is no ghost byline and no invented persona. If you want to know more about the entity behind the writing, that is what the about page is for.
Nothing goes live without a second read by someone other than the person who drafted it, checking three things: that every factual claim is sourced, that every measurement claim matches what the app actually does, and that nothing has drifted outside the scope limits below.
Where our facts come from
Our preferred sources, in order, are peer-reviewed golf biomechanics research; the governing and professional bodies of the sport, such as the USGA, The R&A and the PGA; and established coaching and screening organisations such as the Titleist Performance Institute. Manufacturer marketing material is not a source. Another blog is not a source. A number that appears in ten articles with no primary reference behind any of them is not a source — it is a rumour with good distribution.
Citations appear in two places: in the article's front matter, so they are emitted as structured data, and inline in the prose, so you can click through and check the claim yourself while you are reading it. Where we are not confident that a specific deep link is stable, we cite the organisation's top-level resource rather than guess at a URL.
What we will not write about
Our scope is deliberately narrow: golf swing mechanics and measurement. What the body and the club do through the swing, how those movements are captured on video, what the resulting numbers mean, and how to read them.
We do not publish physical training content. That means no strength programmes, no flexibility or mobility routines, no “swing faster” conditioning advice, and nothing about back, wrist, shoulder or any other pain or injury. Those subjects need someone qualified to assess you in person, and a website cannot do that responsibly at scale.
Where a piece describes a movement drill, it is a patterning drill — a way of rehearsing a shape or a sequence — and the article is flagged so the advisory note appears with it. Even then: it is general instruction. Individual instruction comes from a qualified coach who can watch you hit balls.
How we write about our own product
SwingOK has not launched. When an article mentions what the app does, it describes a product in development, and we say so rather than writing in a confident past tense about something nobody has used yet. We do not publish accuracy figures we have not validated, and we do not claim endorsements, partnerships or lab validation that do not exist. There are no aggregate ratings in our structured data for the same reason: an entity reviewing itself is not evidence.
Our guides link to our tools where a tool genuinely helps you understand the thing being explained, and not otherwise. An article should be worth reading even if you never download anything.
Corrections
We will get things wrong. When we do, we want to know quickly and fix it properly.
Email [email protected] with the page, the passage and, if you have one, the source that shows what it should say. Substantive corrections are made to the article itself and the modification date on the page is updated, so the change is visible rather than quietly buried. If a claim turns out to be unsupportable and we cannot fix it, we remove it.
Updates to this policy
If these standards change, this page changes with them and the date at the top moves. It is the only version of our editorial standards there is; there is no different set of rules applied privately.