The standards behind every recommendation.

Our mission

Bonus Eagle exists to publish honest, useful guidance on credit cards and points strategy. We treat the reader's time and money with respect. We refuse the affiliate-marketing default of writing whatever the highest commission justifies.

Editorial independence

Our editorial process is independent of our commercial relationships. Every card we cover is evaluated against the same four questions: Is the welcome bonus genuinely useful? Does the annual fee earn itself back? Are the everyday earn rates competitive? Would we recommend it to a friend? Affiliate payouts do not enter that evaluation.

How we research and write

Our content is created using a combination of human editorial judgment and AI-assisted research tools. Specifically:

• Research: We use AI tools to gather and synthesize publicly available information about credit cards - issuer terms, public reviews, news coverage, points valuations.
• Drafting: Initial drafts of some articles and card analyses are prepared with AI assistance.
• Human review: Every piece of published content is reviewed and edited by a human editor before going live. We do not auto-publish AI output.
• Fact verification: Every numeric claim (annual fees, APR, welcome bonus amounts, rewards rates) is verified against the issuer's official disclosure at the time of publication.
• Source transparency: When we cite specific data, we link to the source where possible.

See our AI Disclosure page for a more detailed explanation of how AI is used.

Research summaries vs. personal reviews

We are explicit about the difference between two kinds of content on this site:

• Research summaries synthesize publicly available information about a card - its terms, its rewards structure, what it competes with, what its strengths and weaknesses are based on the available data. Most of our card coverage falls into this category.
• Personal reviews are based on first-hand experience holding and using a card. We label these clearly when they exist. We do not claim personal experience with cards we have not held.

This distinction matters because it tells you, the reader, what kind of authority you're getting. A research summary tells you what the data says. A personal review tells you what someone who carried the card thinks. Both are useful in different ways.

Sourcing and fact-checking

Every claim we make about a card - welcome bonus, annual fee, APR ranges, earning rates, fees, terms - is checked against the issuer's official disclosure at the time we publish. Card terms change frequently, and we update our content when material changes occur. If you spot an outdated fact, please write to us and we will correct it.

For points valuations, we use a transparent methodology: we calculate value based on transfer-partner redemptions at common award charts, cross-referenced with cash-equivalent ceilings. We do not inflate values to make a card look better than it is.

Corrections

When we make a factual error, we correct it promptly and visibly. The corrected version replaces the original, and material corrections are noted at the bottom of the article. We do not silently edit history.

What we will not do

• We will not publish content written by issuers or their agencies as if it were independent editorial.
• We will not allow issuers to review or approve content before publication.
• We will not adjust rankings or recommendations to reflect bid changes from affiliate networks.
• We will not delete or alter critical coverage in response to commercial pressure.
• We will not auto-publish AI-generated content without human review and verification.
• We will not claim personal experience with cards we have not actually held.
• We will not present AI-generated content as authored by a specific named individual when no such individual reviewed it.

Reader feedback

Our readers see things we miss. When you write to us with a correction, a clarification, or a disagreement, your message is read by the editor. We respond to substantive feedback and we update our coverage when readers point out genuine issues.

Updates to this policy

This policy reflects how we operate today. As our coverage grows, we may add detail or clarification. We will not weaken the standards described here. If we ever do, we will mark the change visibly and explain why.

Contact

Questions about our editorial standards? Use our contact form.