1. Purpose of this policy
Dog Eat Guide publishes educational content about dog food safety, nutrition, feeding, and related everyday care. This Editorial Policy describes the standards we aim to apply before and after publication.
The policy is designed to make our process easier for readers, contributors, and search engines to understand.
2. Editorial scope and site focus
Our primary editorial focus is dog food safety and feeding guidance. Common topics include whether dogs can eat specific foods, preparation methods, food-related risks, treat and calorie context, and when an individual dog’s situation requires veterinary input.
Food safety, fruits, vegetables, proteins, snacks, preparation, portions, feeding context, and related nutrition questions.
Everyday-care topics that directly support safer feeding decisions or help readers understand when to contact a veterinarian.
3. How we research an article
Research begins with the actual reader question rather than a target word count. We first determine whether the query is primarily about safety, preparation, portion context, accidental ingestion, a medical condition, or another decision the reader is trying to make.
Typical workflow
- Define the primary question and important follow-up questions.
- Identify the highest-risk claims that need stronger evidence.
- Review authoritative, veterinary, regulatory, academic, or primary sources where appropriate.
- Compare claims across sources and investigate meaningful disagreements.
- Write the direct answer early instead of hiding it behind a long introduction.
- Add practical preparation, risk, and escalation guidance only where it helps the reader.
- Review the draft for unsupported certainty, repetition, sensational language, and misleading precision.
4. Source selection and evidence standards
Sources are selected based on relevance, authority, transparency, and how well they support the specific claim. A familiar brand name alone does not make a source sufficient for every medical or nutrition statement.
Examples include government agencies, professional veterinary bodies, veterinary schools, peer-reviewed studies, and original regulatory guidance.
Veterinary hospitals, specialist institutions, and transparent veterinarian-reviewed educational pages may support practical explanations.
Useful for context, examples, or product information, but health claims should not rely on marketing material alone when stronger evidence exists.
These may help identify reader questions but are not treated as equivalent to professional or primary evidence.
5. Medical-content boundaries
Dog Eat Guide provides general educational information. Articles are not a substitute for veterinary examination, diagnosis, treatment, or a veterinarian-client-patient relationship.
- We do not diagnose an individual dog from an article, email, comment, or form.
- We do not prescribe medication or tell readers to change a veterinarian’s prescribed dose.
- We do not present generic serving examples as individualized medical prescriptions.
- Known conditions, prescription diets, significant symptoms, medication interactions, and emergencies require professional context.
- Articles should make escalation guidance clear when waiting could be unsafe.
6. Veterinary review and professional-credential claims
A page is not described as “vet reviewed,” “veterinarian reviewed,” “DVM reviewed,” or similar unless a real veterinarian has reviewed that exact version of the content.
When genuine veterinary review is used, the page should clearly identify:
- The reviewer’s real professional name.
- Relevant veterinary credentials.
- A professional profile or other reasonable way to understand the reviewer’s background.
- The date the article was reviewed.
- The scope of the review where useful.
7. Fact-checking and claim review
Higher-risk statements receive greater scrutiny. Toxicity, emergency guidance, disease-related advice, medication information, and precise numerical recommendations require stronger support than low-risk descriptive claims.
Before publication, we aim to check:
- Whether the primary answer matches the cited evidence.
- Whether a food is being discussed in the correct form: raw, cooked, plain, seasoned, processed, with pits, seeds, skin, bones, or other relevant parts.
- Whether serving guidance is being presented with appropriate caution and context.
- Whether special-condition advice goes beyond what a general article can responsibly support.
- Whether emergency symptoms and escalation language are proportionate and clear.
- Whether links and citations lead to the intended source.
8. AI-assisted workflows
Technology, including AI tools, may assist with research organization, drafting, editing, formatting, summarization, structural review, or quality checks.
AI assistance does not replace source verification or editorial responsibility. Important claims should be checked against relevant source material before publication, and fabricated citations, credentials, quotations, clinical experience, or professional review are not acceptable.
Outline organization, editing, readability, comparison of source notes, formatting, and quality-control support.
Invented facts, fake sources, fake veterinary reviewers, fabricated first-hand testing, or unsupported medical certainty.
9. Authors, editorial team and contributors
Articles should have a clear author or editorial byline. When content is produced through the site’s editorial workflow, it may be attributed to the Dog Eat Guide Editorial Team.
A named contributor should only be given credentials, experience, or professional titles that can be accurately supported.
Guest pitches or third-party contributions are subject to editorial review and do not receive guaranteed publication, guaranteed links, guaranteed anchor text, or guaranteed search-engine benefits.
10. Updates and freshness
An article may be updated when guidance changes, a stronger source becomes available, an error is found, the page needs clearer safety guidance, or the content no longer serves the reader well.
We aim to use an “updated” date for meaningful editorial changes rather than changing dates solely to make old content appear fresh.
Examples of meaningful updates
- Changing a safety conclusion based on stronger evidence.
- Replacing weak or outdated sources.
- Correcting an inaccurate serving recommendation.
- Adding an important medical-condition or emergency caveat.
- Rewriting a page to remove repetition, misleading certainty, or unsupported claims.
11. Corrections policy
Readers can report a suspected error by emailing info@dogeatguide.com or using the contact page.
A useful correction report should include the page URL, the exact statement in question, and — where possible — a reliable source that supports the requested change.
Material errors should be corrected promptly after verification. Minor grammar or formatting changes do not necessarily require a public correction note.
12. Commercial independence, advertising and affiliates
Dog Eat Guide may use advertising, affiliate links, sponsorships, or other monetization methods. Commercial relationships should not determine medical conclusions or allow a partner to bypass editorial standards.
- Paid placement does not guarantee a positive recommendation.
- Sponsored or commercial relationships should be disclosed when relevant.
- Paid links should use appropriate link attributes where required.
- Advertisers do not receive the right to fabricate expert endorsements or suppress legitimate safety concerns.
13. External links, internal links and references
External links are used to support claims, provide additional context, or direct readers to useful professional resources. A link does not automatically mean Dog Eat Guide endorses every claim, product, or service on the linked website.
Internal links are added when they genuinely help readers move between related dog-food and nutrition topics. We do not promise contributors or commercial partners a specific link placement or keyword anchor.
14. Contact and related policies
Questions about this Editorial Policy can be sent to info@dogeatguide.com.