Editorial standards
In short: every guide and article on this site is the responsibility of one named person. Claims about how Google, Meta and Shopify work are checked against those companies' own documentation and linked. We do not publish statistics we have not measured. When we get something wrong, we fix it on the page and say so.
AuditTag sells tools that check whether tracking data can be trusted. It would be odd to ask for that trust while publishing guides nobody can check. These are the rules our writing follows, so you can hold us to them.
Who is responsible
AuditTag is a one-person company. Sam Parkinson builds the product and is responsible for everything published here. When a page says "we", it means AuditTag, which is currently him.
Where claims come from
- The platform first. How GA4, Google Ads, Meta and Shopify behave is checked against their own documentation, and that page is linked where the claim is made. Where the platform documentation and common advice disagree, we say so and go with the documentation.
- Checked on a date. Platforms change often. Every page shows when it was published or last updated, and the claims were checked on that date.
- Other sources are named. If a claim rests on someone else's research or reporting, we say whose, and link it.
Numbers
- No borrowed or invented statistics. We do not write "73% of stores" unless we measured it, and we do not repeat figures from vendors whose method we cannot see.
- Our own data comes with its method. Any figure from our own research follows the published research methodology: sample, dates, and what the scan can and cannot see.
- Examples are labelled as examples. A worked scenario such as "Shopify says 120 orders, GA4 says 94" illustrates a problem. It is not a statistic. Our sample audit uses a store that is fictional, and says so.
- No claims of experience we do not have. We will not write "the most common problem we see" until we have the audit data to back it.
What we sell, and how that shows up
AuditTag sells a free audit, paid Fix Packs and Guardrails monitoring, and our guides link to them. So every guide also says what our tool cannot prove, in a "What this doesn't prove" box next to what it checks. A presence check is not a test purchase, and we say that on every page where it matters.
We do not accept payment for mentions or links. Where we compare ourselves with another tool, we say plainly where the other tool is stronger.
Case notes
If AuditTag ever publishes a case note about a real store, it will be with the owner's written permission, and anonymised unless the owner asks to be named. We never adjust a result to look better. Until one exists, the only worked example on this site is the fictional Ashcombe sample, and it says it is fictional.
Fix Pack copy
The titles, descriptions, headings, image alt text and structured data in a Fix Pack are written by Anthropic's API from the text of your own pages. The writing step is told not to add facts your pages do not state. An automated check then compares each written value with the page it was written for. It looks for some kinds of claim the page does not make, such as prices and other numbers, delivery and returns promises, guarantees, reviews and ratings, and words like best. It also flags titles that could sit on any site.
The pack build can also take up to five short notes about how the owner writes, such as words to use, words to avoid and the tone. They are passed to the writing step as guidance on word choice and tone only. They cannot add facts about the business, and the automated check applies the avoid list to whatever comes back.
Before a pack reaches you, automated tests also run over the files themselves, and while pack review is on I open packs myself before release. A pack that passes the tests and that I have not got to within 24 hours is released, and the email says so. A pack that fails is held for me and is never released on a timer.
A value that fails the check is left out of the corrected files and listed for you to decide on, with the wording we would have used. The check is a safety net and it can miss wording, so the pack tells you to read the copy before you use it. Nothing in a pack is applied to your site for you.
Corrections
If you find something wrong or out of date, email hello@audittag.com with the page and the problem. If you are right, we correct the page, update its date, and for anything beyond a typo, add a short note saying what changed. We do not quietly rewrite a claim that turned out to be wrong.
Change log
- 30 September 2026. Said how a pack is checked before release, and that I open packs myself while pack review is on.
- 30 September 2026. Added what the Fix Pack copy check does and does not do, and how case notes will be handled if any are ever published.
- 19 September 2026: first version. The same day, the guides were brought into line with it: official sources linked throughout, experience claims we could not yet support reworded, and two overstated platform claims corrected (Meta's default attribution, and what Google Consent Mode sends before consent).