Table of Contents

Product Review Policy

Last updated: May 2026 · Author: Eleanor B., Lead Editor

This page describes the framework that governs every product review we publish. It is the operational document that connects our Editorial Standards, our How We Test methodology, and our Affiliate Disclosure into a coherent set of rules. Manufacturers approaching us for review coverage should read this page first; it sets out what we accept, what we do not, and what they should and should not expect.

1. What we review

We review products that fall within our editorial scope and that our team has the competence to evaluate:

Hand tools and small powered tools for the home garden (secateurs, spades, hoes, hand trowels, cordless tools).
Seeds, plant varieties, and bulbs — tested across at least one full growing season.
Soil amendments, composts, mulches, and fertilizers — tested across at least one full season, ideally more.
Containers, raised beds, and structures (greenhouses, polytunnels, cold frames) — tested through at least one full year of use.
Books, courses, and educational resources on gardening topics.
Software and apps relevant to garden planning and record-keeping.

2. What we will not review

Products outside the editorial team’s competence (commercial-scale agricultural equipment, specialist pesticides requiring professional licensing, etc.).
Products from companies that condition coverage on favorable framing.
Products from MLM schemes or pyramid-structured business models.
Products from “honest review” arrangements where the brand expects a specific verdict.
Products supplied with a manufacturer-prepared script or “review brief” that defines what we are required to say.
Products our editorial team would not personally recommend to a friend, even if we receive them for free.

3. How we acquire products for review

Products tested for reviews on Explore Your Garden are acquired through one of three routes:

Purchased. The team buys the product at retail. This is our default method, especially for products under approximately €100.
Provided by manufacturer for review. A manufacturer or retailer supplies the product at no cost in exchange for editorial consideration. The article carries a disclosure block at the top: “Product provided by [manufacturer] for review.” The manufacturer has no editorial influence beyond providing the product.
Borrowed. A neighbor, fellow gardener, or local supplier loans the product for the duration of the test. The article notes that the product was borrowed.

The acquisition method is always disclosed in the review. Verdict and editorial framing are unaffected by it.

4. Sample disposition

What happens to a sample after the review is complete depends on the product and the agreement with the manufacturer:

Returned to manufacturer. Default for high-value items (greenhouses, structures, expensive tools) where the manufacturer has expressed a preference for return.
Kept by the testing reviewer. Default for items where return is impractical (consumables, seeds that have been sown, products with extended testing periods).
Donated. Where return is impractical and the reviewer does not need the item, samples may be donated to local community gardens, allotment associations, or horticultural therapy projects. We do not personally profit from samples beyond their use in testing.
Sold. We do not sell samples. Where a sample is no longer needed, options 1 and 3 above are used.

5. Test period commitments

Test periods are minimums, not targets. We frequently exceed them. Specifically:

Garden hand tools: at least 60 days of consistent use.
Powered tools: at least 60 days, with the test spanning seasonal use cases (spring cleanup, summer maintenance, autumn end-of-season).
Seeds and plant varieties: at least one full growing season from sowing to harvest or season’s end.
Perennial plants: at least two full growing seasons before a definitive verdict; preliminary impressions may be published earlier with a note that the verdict is deferred.
Soil amendments and fertilizers: at least one full season, with side-by-side comparison where feasible.
Greenhouses and structures: at least one full year, including winter and summer extremes.
Books and courses: the entire content is read or completed before review; for courses, the time commitment matches the stated duration.

6. Verdict categories

Our reviews end with a clearly identified verdict in one of four categories:

Recommended — the product performed well in our testing and we believe it will perform comparably in similar conditions.
Conditional recommendation — the product performed well in specific conditions or use cases but is not a universal recommendation. The conditions are explicit.
Not recommended — the product did not perform, has reliability concerns, or is materially overpriced for what it delivers. Specific failures are described.
Verdict deferred — the test period was insufficient for a confident verdict; observations to date are reported, with a date for the follow-up.

7. Comparative reviews

Where we compare products against each other (e.g., “five secateurs tested side-by-side”), the comparison runs in matched conditions:

Same time period.
Same garden or test plot.
Same type of work performed with each.
Same reviewer (typically; in some comparison reviews multiple reviewers contribute structured assessments).

The comparison article identifies the test conditions and any caveats that apply.

8. Sponsored content (rare)

From time to time, we may publish content sponsored by a relevant brand — typically a long-form feature commissioned by a sponsor. Such content is governed by strict rules:

The sponsorship is disclosed prominently at the top of the article (“Sponsored by [Brand]”).
The sponsor has no review or approval rights over editorial framing.
The article meets the same factual-accuracy and editorial standards as non-sponsored work.
If the brief cannot be reconciled with our standards, we decline the sponsorship and refund any advance.
Sponsored content is structurally distinct from product reviews. We do not accept sponsorships that are functionally favorable reviews.

For inquiries about sponsorship, see Work with Us.

9. What manufacturers should and should not do

If you represent a manufacturer or brand and would like us to consider a product for review:

Do send a clear introduction with the product description, its target audience, and why you think our readers would benefit from knowing about it.
Do follow up once if you have not heard back; we read every legitimate inquiry but are slow.
Do not send unsolicited products without prior communication. Unsolicited samples are returned at the sender’s expense or donated.
Do not propose specific verdicts, key talking points, or required mentions. We will decline.
Do not propose link-building exchanges, paid placements styled as editorial content, or “honest review” arrangements with implicit expectations.

The right address is partnerships [at] exploreyourgarden [punto] site.

10. Reader recourse

If you believe a review has been compromised by an undisclosed conflict of interest, an unstated commercial relationship, or an editorial process inconsistent with this policy, please email info [at] exploreyourgarden [punto] site with the subject line Review integrity concern. We investigate and respond, and we publish a correction or retraction where one is warranted.

Related pages: How We Test · Editorial Standards · Affiliate Disclosure · Work with Us · Disclaimer