Editorial policy
Quick answer
Four rules govern everything published here: no claim of testing we did not do, every figure labelled as either a published standard or a service convention, no number invented to fill a gap, and no assertion about what will happen to one particular machine.
The four rules
1. No claim of testing we did not do
Nothing on this site has been tested in person. No page says "we tested", "in our lab" or "hands-on", because none of it would be true. Recommendations come from published manufacturer specifications, current listings and verified owner reports. The diagnostics test your machine, using measurements you take yourself.
2. Every figure carries a label
A standard is a published manufacturer specification, a defined unit, or a physical relationship. A convention is a widely used service rule of thumb. Both are useful and they fail differently, so the reader is always told which one they are looking at.
3. No number invented to fill a gap
Where a figure is not published, the page says so. The diagnostics are built the same way: each one can return no answer, and that branch is a real answer rather than an error. A disclaimer makes general information safe to publish; it does not make a wrong number right.
4. No diagnosis of a machine we cannot see
Every tool gives a checking order and explains what each outcome would mean. None of them says what is wrong with your vacuum, because that would require seeing it. Your own manual and the part numbers printed on the machine are the final authority.
How products are selected
Every product comes from a catalog built from retailer listings, and a listing with no price or no image is rejected rather than having one supplied from elsewhere. Similar listings are never merged, because two machines differing by a model designator, a capacity or a battery specification are two products. Grids show an even spread across a category's price range with the most expensive option included, and roundups say plainly who should not buy the top tier.
Corrections
If something here is wrong, say so. Most figures are generated from one shared factual file, so a correction propagates to every page that uses it rather than leaving stale copies scattered around the site.
Common questions
Why insist so hard on the no-testing rule?
Because the claim is easy to make and almost impossible for a reader to check, which makes it the most common dishonesty in this category. A site claiming hands-on testing of forty machines is describing work that would take months and equipment it does not have. Saying plainly what the research is worth more than an impressive sentence.
What happens when a figure is not published?
The page says it is not published. It does not estimate, interpolate from a similar model, or quote a range wide enough to be safe. A gap stated honestly is information; a number invented to fill it is worse than nothing, because a reader has no way to tell the two apart.
How are corrections handled?
They are acted on, and the fastest route is the contact page with the page name and the figure in question. Because most numbers here are generated from one shared factual file rather than typed into each page, a correction to a convention usually updates every page that uses it at once rather than leaving stale copies behind.
Every figure here comes from published manufacturer specifications, owner reported measurements and repair documentation, and each is labelled as either a standard or a convention. This is researched general information to help you diagnose and plan, not professional advice, and it cannot tell you what is wrong with one particular machine. Your own manual and the part number printed on your machine are the final word.