Our editorial mission
Most online writing about image formats is thin, copy-pasted between sites, or designed primarily to rank for a keyword rather than to be useful. We aim to do the opposite: every guide we publish should be specific, testable, and honest about trade-offs. If you can read one of our articles and immediately know what to do, we have done our job. If you read it and finish more confused than when you started, we have failed.
Scope of our content
We cover topics where we have genuine first-hand experience: image format selection, browser-side image processing, lossless and lossy compression, resizing and cropping for web and social platforms, PDF assembly and conversion, EXIF metadata, and the privacy implications of image-handling tools. We do not write about topics outside that scope.
Who writes our articles
Every article is produced by a member of the ImageToAnything editorial team — a small group of writers, developers and image-tooling engineers who maintain the converters and PDF tools that power the site. We attribute our articles to "ImageToAnything Editorial Team" rather than individual bylines because most pieces are collaboratively researched, written and reviewed before publication.
We do not accept guest posts, sponsored articles, or paid placements. Every word on the blog has been written or commissioned by us specifically for this site.
How an article is researched
Before we write about a format, comparison or workflow, we build it. Compression numbers in our guides come from re-encoding real images on our own machines, not from cited claims on other websites. Browser-support figures come from current public compatibility tables (Caniuse, MDN, WebKit and Chromium release notes) on the date of writing. Quality claims (for example "WEBP at q80 is visually indistinguishable from JPG at q90") are made only after we have tested with real sample images and would stand by them in front of an experienced engineer.
When we cite a specific number — a file size, a browser version, a coverage percentage — it is current at the date stamped on the article. Image standards and browser support change; an article last updated two years ago is not the same as one updated last month, which is why we display the update date prominently on every post.
How an article is fact-checked
Every guide is reviewed by a second member of the team before publication. The reviewer's job is to:
- Re-run any benchmark numbers cited in the article and confirm they reproduce.
- Check browser-version claims against the current Caniuse and MDN data.
- Click every recommended step on a fresh browser to make sure instructions still work.
- Strip out filler, hedging language and unsupported absolute statements.
- Confirm that nothing in the piece reads as medical, legal or financial advice.
If we cannot back a claim, we either remove it or rewrite the surrounding paragraph to be honest about uncertainty. "We do not know" is an acceptable conclusion in our editorial process.
Update schedule and the "Updated" date
Every blog post shows the date it was last reviewed and updated. We review each article at least once every twelve months and after any major browser release that affects the format being discussed. When a major change happens out-of-cycle — for example, a browser dropping support for a codec — we update the relevant articles within two weeks and refresh the date.
Significant content changes (new sections, revised numbers, corrected recommendations) are reflected by bumping the update date. Minor copy-edits are not.
Corrections policy
If you find a mistake — an out-of-date browser version, a benchmark that no longer reproduces, a recommendation that turned out to be wrong — please tell us through the contact form. We respond to every credible correction request, investigate the claim, and either issue a correction in the article (with a visible "Updated" date bump) or explain why we are leaving the text as it is.
For meaningful corrections we publish a short note at the bottom of the affected article describing what changed and when, so readers can see the article's history.
What we do not write about
We do not publish content on topics where bad advice could harm a reader and where we are not subject-matter experts. Specifically:
- No medical, mental-health or pharmaceutical advice.
- No legal advice (including immigration, family, criminal or contract law).
- No financial, investment, insurance, cryptocurrency or gambling advice.
- No safety-critical instructions (electrical work, firearms, food preservation).
- No "Your Money or Your Life" (YMYL) content of any kind.
We will sometimes mention these topics in passing when they intersect with image handling (for example, "do not upload sensitive medical scans to a server-side converter without checking its privacy policy"), but only as practical guidance about image tooling — never as advice on the underlying medical, legal or financial decision.
Sources and attribution
When we rely on a third-party source — a browser-vendor blog post, an IETF or W3C specification, a Caniuse table — we link to it directly in the relevant article so readers can verify our claim. We do not invent statistics. If a number is presented without a source link, it was generated by our own benchmarking; readers are welcome to ask us to reproduce it.
We do not use unattributed quotations. We do not present any third-party data, image, or article as our own work.
Use of AI tools
Editorial staff may use AI tools as a writing aid — for brainstorming outlines, summarising long technical documents, rephrasing awkward sentences, or copy-editing for clarity — in the same way a writer might use a thesaurus or a search engine. Every article is reviewed, edited and verified by a human editor before publication. We do not publish unedited AI output, and we do not generate articles or sections of articles in bulk from AI prompts.
AI is never used to fabricate benchmarks, browser-support data, quotations, or any factual claim in an article. Where we cite a number, that number is grounded in either our own testing or a linked third-party source — not in a model's training data.
Independence from advertisers
The site is funded by display advertising delivered primarily through Google AdSense. Ads pay for hosting, bandwidth and the developer time that maintains the tools. They have no influence on our editorial decisions:
- Advertisers cannot pay to be mentioned in or excluded from our articles.
- We do not run affiliate-marketing programs for any image format, codec, browser or third-party service we discuss.
- We do not accept free products, paid placements, or sponsorships from companies whose tools we benchmark or compare.
- Our reviewers are encouraged to recommend free competitors, native operating-system tools, and command-line utilities whenever those are genuinely the best answer.
Reader feedback and reachability
We read every message sent to the contact form, including complaints, corrections and tool requests. We do not have a customer-success team or a ticketing system; replies come from the same people who write the articles and maintain the code. Response time is usually 1–3 business days.
Read more
See our latest guides, read our Privacy Policy or learn how the tools work.