OCR.now
Open OCR

OCR.now editorial policy for research and publishing standards

How OCR.now researches, writes, updates, and quality-checks its tools and learning content.

Our approach

OCR.now publishes only content that helps someone capture, recognize, structure, evaluate, or protect document text. Search demand alone is not a reason to create a page.

See how these standards support OCR.now's purpose and scope, and compare published claims with our recognition methodology.

How a page earns publication

A proposed page must answer a distinct operational question, show what changes for that document or workflow, and leave the reader with a decision method. Format pages are rejected when the only difference is a file extension or keyword.

How a page earns publication checks

  • The title and H1 describe the same intent.
  • The page states what the live tool can and cannot produce.
  • A checklist, table, example, or working rule adds value beyond a definition.
  • Related links are chosen by the next useful task, not by keyword repetition.
  • The page is held back when it duplicates stronger existing coverage.

Research and source hierarchy

Technical claims should be traced to primary documentation, standards bodies, public archives, or the behavior of the software itself. Secondary explanations may help discovery, but they do not replace the underlying source.

Research and source hierarchy checks

  • Engine behavior: official Tesseract documentation and controlled local tests.
  • Accessibility: W3C Web Accessibility Initiative techniques and explanations.
  • Digitization: National Archives and Library of Congress guidance.
  • Language direction: Unicode and W3C internationalization references.
  • Site quality: Google Search Central policies and documented render audits.

Authorship and AI-assisted work

Pages use the OCR.now Editorial organizational byline because this site does not claim a named expert or credential that has not been established. AI tools may assist with research organization, outlining, and drafting. That assistance is not presented as personal testing, professional advice, or independent expert review.

Authorship and AI-assisted work checks

  • No invented authors, reviewers, credentials, interviews, case studies, or user testimonials.
  • No claim of hands-on testing unless a reproducible test was actually run.
  • Source links are checked for relevance to the claim they support.
  • Tool capability statements are compared with the deployed code.
  • Generated prose is edited to remove unsupported certainty, repetition, and filler.

Corrections and updates

A page is updated when its method, source guidance, live functionality, or factual basis changes. Dates must not be refreshed merely to create an appearance of recency. A material correction should explain what changed when the prior statement could have affected a reader's decision.

Corrections and updates checks

  • Broken or outdated primary sources are replaced with current authoritative references.
  • Tool limits are updated with the code release that changes them.
  • Conflicting pages are reconciled instead of leaving multiple answers live.
  • Weak pages are improved, consolidated, redirected, or removed from indexing.
  • Imported articles remain subject to the same standards as first-party guides.

Automated publishing gate

The Docs Library importer verifies site identity, strips duplicate H1 headings, rejects duplicate slugs, sanitizes HTML, converts cover images to WebP, and schedules accepted posts at least three days apart. It also holds repeated-sentence filler, low-variation prose, mismatched intent, weak topical coverage, and content that overlaps existing pages. A successful import is a transport and automated quality check, not a claim of named-expert review.

Automated publishing gate checks

  • Content for another domain must never be published.
  • A slug collision is skipped rather than overwritten.
  • The article title, H1 intent, meta description, and body must agree.
  • Unreviewed third-party links are sanitized and marked nofollow before storage.
  • Low-value, repetitive, duplicate, or off-topic drafts are held even when the API marks them available.