Editorial Standards

Sourcing: primary sources only

Every non-obvious factual claim is backed by a primary source. We cite from a deliberately narrow set:

• Official LinkedIn documentation — the LinkedIn Help Center, product announcements, and the LinkedIn Engineering blog.
• Regulatory and corporate filings — Microsoft/LinkedIn earnings disclosures and official press releases.
• Peer-reviewed research — academic work on social platforms, feed ranking, and reader behavior.
• ContentIn's own platform data — anonymized, aggregated usage data from our product. Original data is the strongest source there is.

We never cite competitor blogs, SEO aggregators, or content marketing pages as authorities on how LinkedIn works. Citing a competitor points authority away from the reader and toward an unverified secondary claim.

Citation format

Claims carry inline numbered markers that link to a full Article Sources list at the foot of the page. Each source names the publisher and title, links to the original (with rel="noopener nofollow"), and records the date we last accessed it. Every source is mirrored into the page's structured data so machines can verify our references, not just readers.

Updates and the anti-spoofing rule

The visible "Updated" date and the machine-readable dateModified only move when we have actually re-verified the content against its sources and made a substantive change. We do not bump dates cosmetically to appear fresh. Time-sensitive terms are reviewed on a set cadence; stable definitions are reviewed at least annually.

Accountability

Every page carries a byline that links to a real, public author page with a photo, credentials, and contact link. A page that is not attributable to a named human is not something we publish. Corrections are made on the page itself, and material corrections are reflected in the update date.

Spotted something inaccurate or out of date? Email [email protected] and we will review it.