Editorial policy

This page explains how I create the content on PlantedBox: who writes, what sources I use, how I handle numbers and claims, and what you can expect from me as a reader. This policy applies to everything on planted-box.com: blog articles, product pages, e-books, guides, emails and instruction manuals.

• Who writes the content?
• My background
• What sources do I use?
• How do I handle numbers and claims?
• What about product mentions?
• How do I use AI?
• When is an article published, and how often do I update?
• What I do when I get things wrong
• How I handle customer reviews
• Affiliate links, sponsoring and partners
• Questions or feedback?

Who writes the content?

I do. My name is Gilles, and I run PlantedBox as a one-person business based in Belgium. Most articles on the blog are written by me, based on what I see in product development, daily customer support conversations, and my long-running experience with planted aquariums.

For specific scientific topics (plant physiology, CO2 chemistry, nutrient dynamics) I work with Natascha, an external researcher who helps me verify scientific claims and find peer-reviewed sources. When her contribution to an article is substantial, that’s mentioned at the bottom.

PlantedBox doesn’t have an editorial team, ghostwriters, or an external content agency. When you read an article here, you’re reading something I either wrote myself or read line by line before publishing.

My background

My experience with planted aquariums goes back further than PlantedBox itself. I have over twenty years of experience with planted tanks, in different styles and formats. PlantedBox launched in 2015, because at that point I noticed it was hard to find good advice and honest products for planted aquariums in the Benelux region.

From 2015 onwards, PlantedBox was present every year at the Vivarium fair, first as an exhibitor and from 2020 as a sponsor. That fair was at the time one of the leading aquarium events in Europe, and it has since stopped. The years I spent there put me in direct contact with a lot of fellow aquarists, hobbyists, and people from the wider industry.

What sources do I use?

For everything I write, I rely on three types of sources.

My own practice. Products are thoroughly tested during the development phase before they enter the assortment, and I receive customer questions through support every day. What I write largely comes from what I see working in practice, and from what I see going wrong. If a claim comes from this practice and not from published research, I make that clear with phrases like “in practice, I see that…” or “customer reports show that…” instead of dressing it up as science.

Scientific literature. For topics like plant nutrition, CO2 chemistry and algae control, I rely on authoritative sources. The main ones:

• Diana Walstad, Ecology of the Planted Aquarium, the standard reference for low-tech planted tanks.
• Tom Barr, the creator of the Estimative Index method and a global authority on high-tech nutrition.
• Marcel Goliaš (aqua.golias.eu), who has published detailed aquarium experiments for years.
• Peer-reviewed papers on plant physiology, water chemistry and algae biology where relevant.

When a claim relies on one of these sources, I mention it in the text (for example “according to Walstad, chapter VI…”) or in a numbered bibliography at the end of the article.

My own customer data. Since 2015 I’ve helped many people personally, mainly through support emails, my anti-algae tool and daily customer conversations. The recurring patterns I see, the questions that keep coming back, and what does or doesn’t work, I use to back up my articles. When I mention a number or percentage that comes from this practice, I make it clear in the text where it’s based, for example “based on questions I get every day” or “in practice I see that”. Confidential business numbers are not shared.

What I don’t use as a source: hobby forums, other webshop blogs, or generic aquarium sites. Not because they’re systematically wrong, but because they often copy from each other and are hard to verify. For me, a claim only counts as a claim when there’s a primary source behind it.

How do I handle numbers and claims?

I’m strict on this with myself, because this is the difference between content you can trust and content that just sounds plausible.

1. No numbers without a source. If I write “30% of aquarists have too much light”, I have to be able to point to something. If it comes from my customer data, I say so. If it comes from Walstad or Barr, I name the chapter or page. If I have no source, the number doesn’t go in the text.
2. Distinction between practice, science and opinion. “In my experience…” is not the same as “Research shows that…”. I always try to make clear what kind of claim I’m making. If something is based on my practical experience and not on published research, I say so.
3. Honest about what I don’t know. Aquarium research is a small field with few major studies. Some things have never been properly investigated. In those cases I write “I suspect that…”, “in practice it seems that…” or “this isn’t scientifically proven, but…”. I find that more honest than pretending certainty.

What about product mentions?

On planted-box.com I sell my own products: All-in-One fertilizers, CO2 systems, aquascaping tools. In articles I mention these products when they’re relevant to the topic. That’s not a hidden interest: this is my shop, and I want you to buy something that actually helps you.

But there are two things I try to respect.

Product mentions shouldn’t distort the advice. If CO2 isn’t the solution to your problem, I’ll say so, even though I could sell you a complete kit. If your tank would benefit more from a water change or less light than from a new fertilizer, that’s what the article will say. My anti-algae tool ends in a significant share of cases without any product recommendation, because the solution lies in behaviour or setup and not in something I sell.

Competitors are treated fairly. When I mention EasyLife, Tropica, ADA or other brands, I do it as neutrally as possible. I don’t write hit-piece comparisons to make my own line look better. Where my product is weaker than a competitor on a specific point, that gets said too.

Sometimes I make comparisons on price or format without naming a competitor by name (“one bottle instead of three separate products”, or “cheaper per litre than the average powder kit”). These comparisons need to be factually correct, even without a brand name. If the price ratio changes, I update the text.

How do I use AI?

I use AI tools (Claude, ChatGPT) as help in the writing process, mainly for structure, language checks, brainstorming and translations. But I follow three strict rules:

• No claim, no number, no source goes on the site without being read by me. I check everything AI generates against my actual sources, because AI tools love inventing plausible numbers and references that don’t exist.
• Content translated from Dutch (this page included) is always reviewed by me or by a native speaker before publication.
• I never use AI to generate facts. AI is good at phrasing, not at fact-finding.

The voice and the substantive choices are always mine. If an article reads like it was written by a human, that’s because it was.

When is an article published, and how often do I update?

Every blog article shows the publication date at the top. When I make significant content changes, I update that date so you can see when the article was last revised.

When I get signals that an article is outdated (customer questions, new scientific publications, or my own practice having changed my mind), I revise it or take it down. This doesn’t happen on a fixed schedule: it happens when it’s needed.

What I do when I get things wrong

I make mistakes. If you spot something on the site that doesn’t add up, email me at gilles@planted-box.com. For factual errors, I update the article. For differences of interpretation, I’d rather discuss it with you first before changing anything, because not every difference of opinion is a mistake.

If the error has consequences for readers (for example a wrong dosage that could damage a tank), I also publish the correction in my newsletter.

How I handle customer reviews

Product reviews on the site come from real customers, through an independent review platform (WiserReviews). Every review is linked to a specific order, so only people who actually bought something can leave a review. That’s not a given: some review platforms claim their reviews are real but don’t verify whether the reviewer is actually a customer.

For writing a review, you get a discount voucher, regardless of how many stars you give. A 1 out of 5 gets the same discount as a 5 out of 5. I do this on purpose: I want honest feedback, not forced star ratings.

Technically I could remove negative reviews to bump up the score. I don’t. You can check this yourself by filtering product pages by lowest rating: the less positive reviews are right there.

When a review says something factually incorrect about a product, I respond publicly with a correction. When someone is unhappy, I reach out to resolve it, but I never ask for a review to be changed.

Affiliate links, sponsoring and partners

PlantedBox has its own ambassador programme where external creators receive a commission on sales through their link. When an article or social post is created by an ambassador or in collaboration with a partner, that’s clearly mentioned in the content.

I don’t work with paid product reviews, sponsored placements without disclosure, or “advertorials” that present themselves as editorial content.

Questions or feedback?

For questions about this editorial policy, errors in articles, or topic suggestions: gilles@planted-box.com. I read everything myself and you’ll get a personal reply.

PlantedBox – Scapedesign BV
Jufferstraat 13, 3806 Velm, Belgium
BE 0718.796.229
gilles@planted-box.com

Last updated: [last_modified_date]