Editorial standards
How These Guides Are Written and Sourced
Technical content in manufacturing is usually published unsigned, unsourced and by a company with something to sell. This page sets out the rules this site works to, so you can check whether it keeps them.
Rule 1: a named human is accountable
Every guide carries a byline and it is always the same one, because one person writes them. Compare that against the large manufacturing knowledge bases, which publish extensive technical content with no author, no reviewer and no way to ask anyone a question about it.
If something here is wrong, there is a specific person to tell. That isRyan Nguyen, at sales at cncmachinebase.com.
Rule 2: figures come from standards, not from vendors
Where a number appears in a guide, it is one of four things, and which one is always clear from the text:
- A published standard. ISO 13920 tolerance classes, EN 1561 casting grades, ISO 5817 weld quality levels, ISPM 15 timber treatment. Cited by number so you can look it up.
- An attributed manufacturer claim. When a supplier publishes a performance figure for their own product, it is named as theirs. You will see constructions like "BaseTek states its Zanite Plus composite offers up to 24 times the damping of an equal geometry of steel" rather than a bare damping multiplier presented as physics.
- A typical commercial range, labelled as such. The spec tables on this site say "typical ranges, not promises" because that is what they are.
- Published research, described as a finding from a study rather than as a universal result. Where a structural optimisation paper reports a stiffness gain for one geometry, the guide says so rather than implying your part will do the same.
Rule 3: what gets rejected
- A number nobody can source. If a figure cannot be traced, it comes out of the draft rather than being hedged with "approximately".
- A competitor's marketing claim repeated as fact.
- Round numbers that feel authoritative and mean nothing: "up to 50% faster", "industry-leading tolerances".
- Certifications. This operation holds none and claims none. The fabricators hold theirs and will show you their own certificates.
- Invented social proof. No client logos, no case studies I cannot evidence, no testimonial that did not happen.
Rule 4: the commercial interest is disclosed
This site exists to generate enquiries. I am never paid by buyers and never take a commission on an order. That is set outon the about page, and it is relevant when you read a guide that recommends getting three quotes.
Where a guide's advice would reduce the amount of work sent my way, it still says so. The guides tell you to check whether your chatter problem is actually the tool rather than the base, to price a filled weldment before committing to mineral cast, and that shipping several tonnes may outweigh the saving on the part. None of that helps this business and all of it is true.
Rule 5: corrections are visible
Errors get fixed on the page and the updated date changes. Where a correction changes the substance of the advice rather than the wording, it is noted where the old advice stood. Nothing is silently removed.
If you have found something wrong, particularly if you are a fabricator or an engineer who works with this material daily, please write to sales at cncmachinebase.com. Corrections from people who do the work are the most valuable mail this site gets.
Rule 6: no links to sites we also run
Outbound links go to standards bodies and reference sources, never to other commercial sites operated by the same person for search advantage. Links within this site go to other guides on this site, and that is the extent of it.
On AI assistance
The guides are drafted with AI assistance and reviewed, corrected and signed off by a named human before publication. Saying so is more useful than implying otherwise.
The test that matters is not how a sentence was produced but whether the claim inside it survives a check against the standard it references. That check is done by a person, the byline names that person, and the correction address at the bottom of every guide reaches them.
Questions
Who writes the guides on this site?
All of them are written by Ryan Nguyen, who runs the site. There is no content team, no freelance pool and no syndicated material. Every guide carries the same byline because there is only one person to put on it.
Are the figures in the guides reliable?
Every figure is either taken from a published standard, cited to the organisation that published it, or labelled as a typical commercial range rather than a promise. Where a manufacturer publishes a performance claim for their own product, it is attributed to them by name rather than presented as a property of the material class.
Is the content written by AI?
The guides are drafted with AI assistance and are reviewed, corrected and signed off by a named human before publication, which is also what Google asks for. The test applied is not how the text was produced but whether each claim can be traced to a standard or an attributed source. Anything that cannot be is removed rather than softened.
What do you do when you get something wrong?
Correct it on the page and update the date. Nothing is quietly deleted. If a correction changes the advice rather than the wording, it is stated at the point where the old advice was.
Hold this page against the guides. If you find a figure that breaks one of these rules, that is a reportable error and I would like to know about it.Start with the guides.