Editorial Policy
How the guidance here is written, checked and corrected — and what stops this site becoming another pile of generated filler.
Who writes it
Vitor Aguiar writes and is accountable for everything published here. Every article carries a byline linking to a real person with a real page. There is no "Admin" and no "Editorial Team" standing in for someone who does not exist.
What we do and do not claim to be
I am a software developer, not a recruiter. That shapes what this site is confident about.
Where the subject is technical — what an applicant tracking system extracts from a PDF, why a two-column layout parses badly, why a resume saved as an image is unreadable to a machine — the guidance comes from testing it, and the site says what was tested.
Where the subject is judgement — how long a resume should be, whether to explain a gap — the guidance is presented as what the available evidence and common practice suggest, with its sources, not as a rule handed down. Anyone promising you a single correct answer to those questions is overselling.
Where AI is used, and where it is not
AI assists with drafting and structuring articles on this site. That is disclosed here because a reader might reasonably wonder, and because the alternative — quietly pretending otherwise — is the kind of thing that should cost a site its credibility.
What that does not mean:
- Nothing is published as a model produced it. Every page is edited, fact-checked and cut down by a person before it goes up.
- Pages are not mass-generated. A templated library of near-identical pages with the job title swapped is exactly what Google's scaled-content-abuse policy targets, and it would be a bad thing to read besides.
- Worked examples — the resumes shown on example pages — are written and checked for the specific role, including whether the certifications named actually exist and the tools named are actually used in that field.
The checks that run before anything is published
These are enforced by the build, not by good intentions. A page that fails them does not get published, because the site does not compile.
| Check | What it requires |
|---|---|
| Uniqueness | No page may share more than 40% of its five-word sequences with any other page on the site, measured against the shorter of the two. Duplicate a page and change the job title, and the build fails. |
| Substance | At least 400 words of actual body copy. Thin pages do not ship. |
| Human review | A person must mark the page as read and approved. Nothing is published — or carries advertising — without that. |
| Demonstrated demand | A page is only written if people actually search for what it answers, with the evidence recorded. Pages nobody is looking for exist to catch search traffic, not to help anyone. |
| Worked example | Example pages must carry a complete, genuinely written resume for that specific role — not a placeholder with the nouns replaced. |
Dates and corrections
Pages show when they were last meaningfully revised. That date moves when the content changes, and not otherwise — rolling a date forward to look fresh is a small lie that a lot of sites tell, and it is easy not to tell it.
If something here is wrong, tell me. Corrections are made promptly, and a correction that changes the substance of a page is noted on the page itself rather than quietly edited away.
Independence
Nothing on this site is paid placement. No one has paid to be recommended here, and no one can.
The site is intended to carry advertising to pay for itself. Advertising is clearly separated from the writing, never placed inside the resume builder, and never affects what the writing says. Where this site compares itself to a competitor, the comparison has to be accurate and current — an inaccurate one is both a trust problem and a legal one.