Skip to content
The Field File.
Method / sheetThe Field File — Method
DocumentTFF-METHOD
ScopeEditorial policy
Axes4 · never averaged
Drawn byEditorial
Index/Method
How a score is built · method, not marketing

Our method

Written by an infrastructure engineer structuring operator consensus, for owners who can smell marketing copy. Blunt, specific, numbers over adjectives.

01

Editorial policy

The brand moat
  1. 01Scores are set before any affiliate link is added. A tool with no affiliate program that scores higher ranks higher. The score is the score.
  2. 02No paid rankings, no sponsored placements, no vendor brand deals. Ever.
  3. 03Axes are never averaged into one number. Trade-offs stay visible.
  4. 04Evidence weight is shown on every score — its tier, plus the mention count and source mix behind it.
  5. 05Insufficient data is not a score. An axis with fewer than eight independent operator data points stays unscored and says so, plainly.
  6. 06Every claim traces to a logged source. Scores come from aggregated operator consensus (Reddit and trade communities) cross-checked against verified-review platforms — never fabricated.
  7. 07FTC affiliate disclosure on every page containing affiliate links (16 C.F.R. Part 255).
02

The four axes

1–10, never averaged
  • COV
    Coverage

    % of the incumbent's actually-used feature set this tool replaces at the buyer's crew size.

  • MIG
    Migration Pain

    (reverse-scored: 10 = painless) — what operators who actually switched report: data import quality, onboarding time, contract lock-in.

  • PRC
    Pricing Honesty

    published pricing? predictable total cost? payment-processing fee structure? price-increase history?

  • FLD
    Field Usability

    tech-facing mobile app sentiment, the #1 complaint driver in the niche.

03

How a score reads

Band leads, number breaks ties

Each axis shows a plain-language band first; the 1–10 sits beside it to position a tool within its band and to break ties on head-to-head pages. The band is what the evidence supports; the number is the fine-tuning.

  • Strong8–10

    operators consistently endorse it at the relevant crew size.

  • Mixed5–7

    works with real caveats — value depends on workflow or crew size.

  • Weak3–4

    recurring complaints outweigh the positives.

  • Poor1–2

    near-consensus that it is a dealbreaker.

Thin evidence can't claim a landslide. The extreme scores — 1, 9, and 10 — require at least 15 independent data points. With fewer (but still the eight needed to score at all), a score is held to the 2–8 range, so a published 10 always means deep, near-unanimous operator evidence.

04

Evidence tiers

Weight shown on every score
  • Community-Scoredaggregated operator consensus from communities, cross-checked against verified-review platforms (our default tier).
  • Editorial Estimatepublished vendor materials only; flagged clearly.
  • Trial-Testedreserved for first-party trial testing with a documented protocol (not in use yet).

Every score carries a verified date and its evidence weight (mention count + source mix). Stale > 6 months = re-verify or flag.

05

No null scores, ever

A page with incomplete or placeholder score data is excluded from search and its scores are hidden. We never render "null/10".