Editorial standards
The standards behind every guide on this site
How we choose what to cover, research, fact-check, and handle corrections - written down so you can hold us to them.
Four Legged Guests is a UK guide to pet-friendly travel - places to stay, places to walk, gear that works, and the practical rules of moving around with a dog. This page sets out the editorial commitments behind what we publish.
If you spot something inaccurate, out of date, or unclear, please tell us. Contact details are at the bottom of this page.
0
Paid placements - ever
5 d
Working days to investigate corrections
100 %
Sources cited where claims are checkable
How we choose what to cover
Topics are chosen based on what UK dog owners are searching for - destinations, accommodation, gear and travel-mode questions - rather than what advertisers or affiliate programmes are paying out. We do not accept paid placements, sponsored posts, or guest contributions that influence editorial decisions.
Where a topic has a commercial angle ("best dog crate", "dog-friendly hotels in Cornwall"), we cover it because the underlying buyer or trip question is real and recurring, not because of revenue potential. Where a topic has no commercial angle but is genuinely useful ("Highway Code rules on travelling with a dog", "first-aid for kennel cough"), we cover that too.
How we research
Four sources, ranked by precedence.
Official guidance
GOV.UK, the Highway Code, DEFRA, RSPCA, the Kennel Club, the British Veterinary Association, and the official websites of accommodation providers and travel operators.
Manufacturer specifications
Product specs, materials, weight limits and warranties come from the manufacturer's published documentation - not from third-party listings that may be out of date or summarised inaccurately.
Independent testing bodies
Where relevant, we cite organisations like the Center for Pet Safety (centerforpetsafety.org), which publishes its protocols and crash-test results for pet travel products.
Aggregated user reviews
Customer reviews on retailers, accommodation booking sites and forums are useful for spotting patterns - durability over time, sizing accuracy, recurring complaints. We summarise patterns; we do not quote individual reviewers.
We do not visit every accommodation or beach we recommend. Where we describe a venue we haven't visited ourselves, we report what the venue's own published information says, supplemented by aggregated reviews and, where available, recent operator updates. Phrases like "based on the operator's listing" or "according to recent visitor reviews" are honest framings - phrases like "we stayed here last summer" would not be, and you will not find them in our editorial content.
How we fact-check
Every claim of fact - a price range, a regulation, a manufacturer spec, an accommodation policy - is sourced before we publish. Where pricing or policies change frequently (energy tariffs, train operator dog rules, accommodation rates), we hedge with "as of the time of writing", note typical ranges rather than fixed figures, and link to the operator's own page so readers can verify current information.
We avoid fabricated statistics. If we do not have data, we say so - either omitting the section or describing what is known qualitatively ("most retailers stock this in two sizes" is honest; "7 out of 10 owners prefer this size" is not, unless we can cite the survey).
Corrections cadence
If we got something wrong, this is how - and how fast - we fix it.
- Day 0
You flag it
A reader tells us - via the contact form, by email, or in a reply - that something on a page doesn't match their experience or contradicts another source.
- Day 1 – 3
We investigate
We check the claim against the original source, the current operator/manufacturer page, and any newer authoritative coverage. We acknowledge the report by email within one working day.
- By Day 5
We act
If the claim was wrong, the page is updated with a short "updated" note explaining what changed. If the claim is still accurate, we reply explaining why - sometimes that's the right outcome too. Material corrections are timestamped; routine refreshes (new product added to a buying guide, venue updates its policy) are not.
We do not silently delete content. If a piece becomes outdated to the point where it is misleading, we either rewrite it or unpublish it with a brief explanation and a redirect to the closest current resource.
Conflicts of interest
We do
-
Use affiliate links to fund the site
When we link to a product or accommodation booking, we may earn a small commission if you buy or book - at no extra cost to you. Programmes we participate in are listed on our affiliate disclosure page.
-
Recommend on quality, not commission
Affiliate relationships do not affect what we recommend or how we describe a product's strengths and weaknesses. A lower-commission option wins if it's the right product.
-
Mark commercial content clearly
Pages containing affiliate links carry a disclosure. "Best of" guides and product reviews are labelled as such, not dressed up as neutral editorial.
We don't
-
Accept gifts, free stays, or product samples in return for coverage
Where a product is widely available and we discuss it, we are describing what is publicly known - not what a brand wanted us to say.
-
Run sponsored reviews
No "sponsored review" framing, no "editorial collaborations" that influence ratings or text. We've declined every pitch.
-
Hide commercial intent behind editorial framing
If a page is a buying guide funded by affiliate links, the disclosure says so plainly at the top - not in a footer no one reads.
AI in our editorial process
We use AI tools in our editorial workflow for research synthesis, drafting and lint checks. Every piece is reviewed editorially before publication. Our AI use disclosure sets out exactly how we use these tools and the boundaries we apply - including the rules we never cross regardless of how good the tooling gets.
Spotted something we got wrong?
Editorial accuracy matters more to us than any other claim on this site. If you've spotted an error, an out-of-date claim, or a phrasing that crosses a line, we want to hear about it. We aim to respond within five working days.