Editorial Standards & How We Review Cards
Our credit card and travel rewards content can affect real financial decisions. This page explains exactly how we research, evaluate, and check it — and how we keep our recommendations honest.
Our promise to readers
Every guide, review, and ranking on BonusBoarding is written to serve the reader first. We don't publish a recommendation we wouldn't give a friend or family member. If a popular card isn't worth its annual fee for most people, we say so. If a "limited-time bonus" is actually mediocre, we say that too.
How we evaluate and rank cards
When we review or rank a card, we look past the marketing and weigh the things that actually determine whether it's worth carrying:
- Real earning rate — what you earn on the spending categories ordinary people use most (groceries, dining, gas, travel, everything else), not just the headline multiplier on one niche category.
- Welcome bonus value — the bonus measured against the spending required to earn it, and how realistic that spend is.
- Annual fee math — whether the credits, perks, and earning realistically offset the fee for a typical cardholder. We calculate the effective cost, not just the sticker fee.
- Redemption value — how much the points or miles are actually worth, including transfer partners, not the inflated valuations issuers like to quote.
- Perks you'll really use — lounge access, travel protections, statement credits — and how easy they are to actually claim.
- The fine print — foreign transaction fees, category caps, expiration rules, and issuer application rules (like Chase 5/24) that can disqualify you.
- Who it's for — we match cards to spending profiles and goals rather than crowning a single "best card," because the right card depends on you.
We compare cards head-to-head and against the alternatives, and we keep our points valuations and top picks consistent across the site so the numbers don't contradict each other from one article to the next.
How we fact-check
Accuracy is the whole job. Before anything publishes:
- Every factual claim — fees, APRs, bonus amounts, earning rates, award prices, program rules — is checked against primary sources: the issuer's own application terms, the loyalty program's official pages, and official announcements.
- Numbers that move over time are flagged as approximate or recent, with a reminder to confirm current terms directly with the issuer, because offers change without notice.
- News and "current offer" articles get an independent second-pass review of the key figures before going live.
- We cite the sources we relied on at the bottom of articles where relevant, so you can verify them yourself.
Keeping content current
The rewards world changes weekly — a card refreshes its bonus, a program devalues its award chart, a perk gets cut. We revisit and update our most important guides as terms change, and we date our articles so you can see how fresh the information is. When we get something wrong, we correct it and don't quietly pretend it never happened.
Editorial independence
BonusBoarding makes money through display advertising and affiliate commissions (see our Affiliate Disclosure). That funding does not influence our editorial judgment:
- No advertiser or affiliate partner gets to approve, edit, or preview our reviews.
- We do not accept payment in exchange for a positive review, a higher ranking, or favorable coverage.
- We regularly recommend cards and accounts that pay us nothing, and we criticize products from companies we have partnerships with when criticism is warranted.
- Rankings are based on value to the reader, full stop — never on commission rates.
Our writers and expertise
BonusBoarding's content is produced by people who actually use these products. Our work is led by founder and editor Ray, who has years of hands-on experience earning and redeeming points across the major US card issuers and travel loyalty programs. Drafts are reviewed and fact-checked before publication. We write from first-hand experience and independent research — never by copying other sites.
A note on AI and content quality
We use technology to help with research and to flag possible factual errors, but our standards are people-first: original analysis, specific numbers, genuine recommendations, and a real human voice. We don't publish generic, padded, or auto-generated filler. If an article doesn't add something useful you can't easily get elsewhere, it doesn't belong on the site.
Corrections & feedback
Found something out of date or wrong? Please tell us — corrections get top priority. Email [email protected] and we'll review and fix it promptly.