Originality and attribution
Public profile and article copy must be original. We do not copy or closely paraphrase commercial reports, competitor profiles, questionnaire items, books, or online explainers. When an assessment uses externally sourced items under a documented licence—currently the public-domain IPIP Big-Five Factor Markers—we identify that source separately from our explanatory copy.
Third-party names, research, or documentation are linked when they materially support a method or claim. A citation does not imply endorsement or affiliation.
How claims are written
Assessment language should reflect uncertainty. We use terms such as “may,” “can,” “often,” and “tends to,” particularly near score boundaries. We avoid claims that a result proves ability, values, diagnosis, compatibility, hiring suitability, or future success.
Readers should be able to distinguish three things: what the assessment measured, how the score was calculated, and what the editorial interpretation adds. If those layers cannot be separated, the page needs revision.
Review before publication
Public assessment content is checked for:
- consistency with the recorded item bank and scoring rules;
- unsupported certainty, clinical language, or employment-selection claims;
- copyright, trademark, licence, attribution, and endorsement risks;
- duplicated or scaled copy that does not add a distinct answer;
- readable headings, descriptive metadata, internal links, and accessibility basics;
- clear limitations and a route to the relevant methodology and sources.
Comparison pages are not made indexable simply because a URL can be generated. A page must answer a plausible comparison question with pair-specific differences, overlap, scenarios, and mistyping or interpretation clues before it is eligible for search indexing.
Authorship and drafting tools
Assessment guides and shared educational pages are published under PersonalityMe Editorial. This is a collective organisational byline, not a claim that every page was written by a psychologist or clinician.
Software-assisted and AI-assisted drafting, checking, or restructuring may be used during production. These tools are not treated as authors or sources. Publication decisions, source checks, edits, and accountability remain with PersonalityMe Editorial.
Updates and corrections
Material changes to scoring, source status, limitations, or the meaning of a result should trigger a page review. The visible review date reflects the current editorial source file, not a promise that every external link was checked that day.
We correct substantive errors rather than silently preserving them for consistency. To request a correction, send the URL, the statement at issue, and any supporting primary source through the contact page.