Editorial Policy (FieldServiceTools)

ByField Service Tools Editorial Team

Last updated: January 13, 2026

FieldServiceTools exists to help trade businesses (HVAC first, then plumbing/electrical/roofing) choose field service software with less risk and fewer surprises. This editorial policy explains how we select products to cover, how we evaluate them, how we handle affiliate relationships, and how we keep our recommendations independent.

Contents show

Our mission and who we write for

We write for operators and teams who need software that actually works in the field:

  • HVAC owners and GMs
  • Dispatchers and office managers
  • Service managers and technicians
  • Finance/admin teams managing invoicing, payments, and integrations

Our goal is simple: publish practical, verifiable guidance that helps you pick tools you’ll still like after 90 days of real usage—when setup friction, feature gaps, or pricing tiers become obvious.

What we cover (and what we don’t)

We focus on software categories tied directly to service operations:

  • Scheduling and dispatch
  • Estimates and quoting
  • Invoicing and payments
  • Pricebooks and flat-rate pricing
  • Technician mobile apps
  • Memberships / service agreements
  • Inventory and parts
  • Reporting, job costing, and payroll/time tracking
  • Integrations (QuickBooks, Stripe, Zapier, Google Calendar, etc.)

We generally do not cover:

  • Tools unrelated to field workflows (generic CRMs with no service ops depth)
  • Products that are not actively maintained
  • Tools that do not provide sufficient public documentation to verify key claims

How we choose tools to review

We choose products based on a mix of market relevance and user demand. Signals include:

  • Real-world adoption in US trade businesses
  • Fit for trade workflows (HVAC-first requirements, then other trades)
  • Visibility in comparisons and “alternatives” searches
  • Integration needs (especially accounting + payments)
  • Feature completeness for core workflows

We also pay attention to “non-obvious” decision drivers that experienced buyers search for, such as:

  • implementation friction, data migration, pricebook import, tech adoption
  • pay-to-play rankings, review integrity, sponsorship firewall
  • feature gating, tier locks, per-user pricing traps
  • QuickBooks integration type (sync depth, directionality, limitations)

Editorial independence (the “no pay-to-play” rule)

FieldServiceTools may earn revenue through affiliate relationships. That said:

  • We do not accept payment in exchange for a positive review.
  • We do not sell “top spot” placements or guaranteed rankings.
  • Vendors cannot purchase editorial outcomes.
  • If we publish sponsored content in the future, it will be clearly labeled, and it will not be presented as an independent review.

This is an “editorial firewall” principle: monetization cannot override what we publish, how we score, or which drawbacks we disclose.

How our reviews are created (high-level)

Our review work is designed to be repeatable and comparable across tools. Typical steps include:

  1. Define the job-to-be-done (who is buying, why, and what “success” means)
  2. Map the workflow (dispatch → estimate → job → invoice → payment → reporting)
  3. Verify product claims using primary sources (vendor documentation, release notes, pricing pages, integration docs, trial/demo access where possible)
  4. Assess fit for specific trade contexts (HVAC install vs service, multi-tech teams, memberships, after-hours dispatch, etc.)
  5. Capture constraints (feature gating, required add-ons, tier limitations)
  6. Document what changes over time (pricing shifts, integration updates, platform changes)

For our detailed scoring logic and methodology, see our review methodology page.

Fact-checking and verification standards

Software changes frequently. We treat verification as a first-class requirement, not an afterthought.

We aim to verify, whenever possible:

  • pricing structure and plan tiers
  • trial/demo availability
  • core workflow capabilities (dispatch, estimates, invoicing, payments)
  • integration specifics (e.g., QuickBooks sync limitations)
  • support channels and availability
  • major changes announced in product updates

If we cannot verify a claim from a reliable primary source, we either:

  • label it as unverified, or
  • remove it from the article until it can be confirmed

Updates, corrections, and revision history

We update content when:

  • pricing changes materially
  • an integration changes behavior or limitations
  • a major feature is added/removed
  • a vendor changes plan packaging or discontinues a product
  • readers report inaccuracies with evidence

If you believe we got something wrong, contact us with:

  • the page URL
  • what you think is incorrect
  • a reliable source (documentation link, official screenshot, release note, etc.)

We treat corrections as a priority, especially when they affect buying decisions.

Affiliate relationships and disclosures

Some links on FieldServiceTools may be affiliate links. If you click an affiliate link and later purchase, we may earn a commission at no additional cost to you.

Affiliate revenue helps fund:

  • research time and verification work
  • updating content over time
  • building and maintaining comparison data and tooling

Affiliate relationships do not determine:

  • which products we review
  • how we score products
  • which products rank higher
  • whether we disclose downsides or deal-breakers

For a full disclosure, see our affiliate disclosure page.

Conflicts of interest policy

To preserve independence:

  • We do not accept compensation for favorable coverage.
  • We do not accept gifts intended to influence coverage.
  • If we receive demo access or product walkthroughs, we treat them as input—not as proof.
  • If a relationship creates a potential conflict, we disclose it or avoid coverage until it can be managed responsibly.

AI-assisted content policy

We may use AI tools to support drafting, outlining, and editorial workflows. However:

  • AI does not replace verification.
  • Any factual claim that impacts a decision (pricing, integrations, limitations) must be checked against reliable sources.
  • We aim to publish content that is useful, specific, and not “commodity text.”

What readers should expect from our content

You should expect us to be:

  • Specific: We focus on workflow realities, not marketing language.
  • Comparable: Reviews and comparisons follow consistent evaluation logic.
  • Transparent: We explain how we make money and how we maintain independence.
  • Update-aware: We treat software as a moving target and publish update notes when changes matter.

Contact

For editorial questions, corrections, or feedback, contact us via our contact page.

FAQ

1) Does FieldServiceTools accept payment for rankings?

No. We do not sell placements or guaranteed positions. Rankings are determined by our editorial evaluation and verification process.

2) Are your reviews influenced by affiliate commissions?

No. Affiliate revenue does not determine which tools rank higher. We prioritize verified capability, workflow fit, constraints, and real trade-business requirements.

3) How do you choose which software to review first?

We prioritize products that are widely used by trade businesses, frequently searched in comparisons/alternatives, and relevant to core field workflows and integrations.

4) How often do you update reviews and comparisons?

We update when material changes occur (pricing, plan packaging, integrations, major feature updates). We also update when credible reader reports reveal inaccuracies.

5) What sources do you use to verify information?

We prioritize primary sources such as vendor documentation, pricing pages, release notes, and integration documentation. Where feasible, we also use trials, demos, or walkthroughs.

6) What happens if a vendor disputes something in a review?

We request supporting evidence from primary sources. If we confirm an error, we correct it. If the claim remains unverifiable, we label it as such or remove it.

7) Do you test every feature hands-on?

Not always. Some features require paid tiers, long implementations, or partner services. When hands-on verification isn’t feasible, we rely on primary documentation and clearly separate verified vs. unverified claims.

8) What is “pay-to-play” and do you allow it?

“Pay-to-play” refers to vendors paying for better editorial outcomes (rankings, reviews, awards). We do not allow it.

9) Can vendors review or edit your content before publishing?

Vendors can point out factual errors, but they cannot approve, veto, or rewrite editorial conclusions.

10) Do you publish sponsored content?

If we publish sponsored content in the future, it will be clearly labeled. Sponsored content will not be presented as an independent review.

11) How do you handle conflicts of interest?

We avoid relationships that compromise independence. If a potential conflict exists, we disclose it or avoid coverage until it can be managed responsibly.

12) Do you use AI to write reviews?

We may use AI for drafting support, but verification is required for decision-impacting claims. Editorial responsibility remains with FieldServiceTools.