OpenSchoolbag Editorial Policy
The OpenSchoolbag editorial policy explains how Singapore education guides are researched, reviewed, corrected and separated from archived commercial listings.
At a glance
Primary sources
MOE and SEAB for changing official facts
Visible review
Substantive updates change the review date
Clear corrections
Precise, supported reports are checked
The standards we hold each page to
Independence
Archived seller and product URLs are labelled. We do not imply stock, price, partnership or endorsement without current evidence. Paid placements, if introduced, will be disclosed and links qualified.
A useful next step is to contact the editorial team.
Evidence and scope
We distinguish stable learning principles from changing administrative facts. Time-sensitive admissions, scholarships and examination details must be verified at the current official source.
A useful next step is to see our resource selection guide.
Corrections
We welcome precise corrections. Substantive updates change the visible review date; minor copy edits do not manufacture freshness.
A useful next step is to browse all magazine articles.
Sources and citations
Primary sources come first for examination formats, admissions, financial assistance and official dates. Relevant guides display their MOE or SEAB sources beside the advice they support. A source link is not a claim that the authority endorses OpenSchoolbag.
Automation and editorial responsibility
Software may help organise routes, check links, test metadata or improve consistency. It does not replace responsibility for the published page. We do not mass-publish keyword swaps, fabricate experience, or create unsupported facts to make a page look complete.
What these standards change on a real page
Editorial rules matter when they shape visible choices. OpenSchoolbag uses the following tests when maintaining Singapore education guidance and legacy commercial routes.
A claim must fit the source
MOE and SEAB sources can support official formats, policies and dates; they do not automatically support a learning recommendation. A publisher sample can show how a resource teaches; it does not prove that every learner will benefit. We match the source to the claim and state important limits beside the advice.
An update must change substance
A page receives a new review date when facts, sources, recommendations or meaningful explanations are checked and changed. Correcting punctuation or automatically touching a file is not presented as fresh review. Time-sensitive routes need special attention because an accurate old fact can become misleading without changing its wording.
A legacy URL must remain honest
Old marketplace equity can be preserved through a maintained guide or a close redirect when the reader still has a relevant question. An unverifiable listing is not rebuilt with invented stock, ratings or seller details. Clear gone responses are preferable to thin pages that imitate a product offer which no longer exists.
Automation must remain accountable
Software can find missing headings, broken links, duplicate metadata and inconsistent schema. It cannot decide whether advice is fair, current or well supported. That judgement stays with a person, and so does responsibility for what is published.
We do not use automation to invent experience, spin one page into dozens of keyword variants, or paper over missing evidence. When software helps us organise, calculate or test a page, the result still has to meet the same standards for sources, corrections and clarity. Search visibility never excuses a weak answer.
Every page must answer a real question, state its limits and offer a next step the reader can check. Shared page structures are fine for navigation. The evidence, examples and reasoning must belong to that page. We compare rendered pages regularly so accidental repetition is caught before publication.