Editorial Standards
How CalcCaddy develops, reviews, sources, dates, and corrects its calculators and explanatory content.
Purpose and audience
CalcCaddy publishes planning tools for people making practical project decisions. The goal is to make each result understandable enough to check—not to replace product documentation, bids, codes, or professional design.
Formula and calculation review
Review combines documented examples, automated regression checks and targeted interface checks. Coverage differs by feature; a test passing for one input does not prove every possible project, source or interface state has been verified. Inputs that vary by product or project remain editable instead of being presented as universal facts.
Source hierarchy
CalcCaddy prefers primary and authoritative references: government publications, standards bodies, adopted-code resources, and manufacturer product data. Supplier guidance and established industry handbooks may be used for practical assumptions. Calculators identify assumptions directly when no single universal value exists.
Review dates
A dated note describes the scope of the documented check. An added measurement comparison does not refresh every product, code or source on the surrounding page. It does not mean local prices, codes, or product specifications are live or continuously updated.
Corrections
Confirmed formula, unit, source, or copy errors are corrected in the shared calculator framework and the affected page is reviewed again. To report an issue, email contact@calccaddy.com with the calculator URL, the inputs used, the result received, and what you expected instead.
Commercial independence
CalcCaddy currently has no active advertising or affiliate placements. If commercial relationships are added, they will be disclosed and will not be allowed to change formulas or suppress material limitations.
Originality and useful depth
Every calculator page should answer the practical questions created by its result: which dimensions are required, how the formula works, where product data replaces a default, what should be rounded, and what the estimate excludes. Guides add worked examples, decision context, and links to the related tool rather than repeating generic definitions.
Automated assistance may support drafting, testing, or formatting, but published claims remain subject to the same source and review standards. CalcCaddy does not publish scraped articles, spun copies of competitor pages, or invented experience.
Maintenance and removal
Pages are reviewed when formulas change, a reliable source changes, a correction is confirmed, or an interface is materially revised. Thin utility shells such as embedded calculator frames are excluded from search indexing. A page that cannot provide a dependable and distinct result should be improved, consolidated, or removed rather than kept solely to attract search visits.
Project walkthroughs: author and review scope
New project walkthroughs are prepared by CalcCaddy and labeled as hypothetical teaching examples. Their formulas and purchase rounding are checked with automated tests; this does not mean a licensed contractor, engineer or architect has reviewed a project. Original diagrams explain measurements rather than document completed work. Real project reports will be identified explicitly and will not invent outcomes, photographs or first-hand experience.
For supplier prices, visitors enter their own dated product notes and quotes. Blank prices remain unknown. Broad regional planning ranges elsewhere on the site are not live local quotes. Structural, utility and code decisions require appropriate product instructions and professional or local-authority checks.
Explore the project worksheets →Who, how and what has actually been checked
Kyle maintains CalcCaddy. AI assistance supports drafting and software development; automated tests check arithmetic and selected software behavior. None of those steps is licensed professional certification or independent participant testing.
Original diagrams and examples are labeled hypothetical. We do not use stock or generated images as evidence of a completed project. Photographs and real-project outcomes will only be described as firsthand when that evidence is actually available and permission to publish it is established.
The October 17 reproducible examples show specific inputs and expected answers. A repeatable test demonstrates that case, not universal accuracy. We leave older review dates unchanged when the older material has not been rechecked.