Key takeaways
- Our editorial standards require a named writer, a named reviewer, and a visible last-reviewed date on every page we publish.
- AI tools help us organize research, draft, and format. A person approves every claim, every source, and every decision to publish.
- No client result appears here without written confirmation of the figure and the exact period it was measured over.
- We have built and managed growth systems for Canadian businesses for 20 years, across franchise, ecommerce, legal, and home care.
- Found something wrong? Email info@limeadvertising.com and we will correct it and note the change at the foot of the page.
Why we publish these standards, and what content they cover
We publish this because anyone deciding whether to act on our advice deserves to see how it was made and who is accountable for it. Marketing advice is cheap to produce and expensive to follow, and the reader carries the cost of getting it wrong. If we ask you to change how your business handles leads, you should be able to check where that recommendation came from.
There is a second reason. Anyone can now produce a page of confident marketing advice in about a minute, and plenty of people do. Saying our work is different costs nothing. Publishing the rules we hold ourselves to, in enough detail that you can hold us to them as well, is the only version of that claim worth anything.
Which pages and articles these standards apply to
These standards cover everything we publish under our own name. That includes the guides and articles on our Insights hub, our case studies, our system and service pages, anything you can download from us, and the social posts we build from published work.
They do not cover two things. The first is content we write for a client's own website under that client's byline, which runs through the client's approval process and their editorial policy rather than ours. The second is material a client supplies for publication, such as a quote or a photograph, which we attribute rather than verify line by line.
Who we write for
We write for the person who owns or runs the business, not for other marketers. That reader may own a law firm, a home care company, a franchise location, a professional services firm, an ecommerce brand, or a network of locations. They know their business well. They have no reason to know what a customer record system does, or what changed in how Google handles search results last quarter.
So we have a rule about language, and we will state it here so you can check whether we keep it. Any industry term we use gets explained in the same sentence it appears in. We do not write “we improve location-level attribution.” We write that we help you see which location, campaign, or page produced each lead. If you find a page of ours that breaks that rule, it is a mistake and we would like to know about it.
Who writes our content, and what are their credentials?
Our content is developed by writers working directly with the strategists, specialists, and account leads responsible for the work. Strategic claims and first-hand observations come from the people who performed or supervised the work, never from a writer inventing them.
Our editorial team
Our guides are written by the strategists, specialists, and account leads who manage client accounts day to day. Between them they cover search visibility, website conversion, customer record and follow-up systems, automation, ecommerce, paid media, and reporting. When a guide describes what happens to a lead in the ten minutes after a form is submitted, it was written by someone who has watched that go wrong on a live account and had to fix it.
Lime has operated in Toronto for more than 20 years, working with Canadian franchise networks, ecommerce and product brands, law firms, clinics, and home care providers. That is what the writing draws on, and it is why we will not write outside it.
Vitor Lima, President, Lime Advertising
Vitor reviews the substance of what we publish. He approves strategic claims, any statement about what we did for a client, any figure attached to a client's business, and the interpretation we put on it. He is the person who says no when a draft claims more than the evidence behind it supports. His full background is on his profile page.
What appears in every byline
Every published piece carries six things: the name of the person who wrote it, the name of the person who reviewed it, the date it was published, the date it was last reviewed, a line stating that AI tools supported the research and drafting, and a link back to this page.
That gives you a quick test. If you find something on our site missing those fields, it has not finished review and should not be treated as published guidance. Tell us and we will either finish it or take it down.
How does subject-matter review work before something publishes?
Every piece moves through a fixed sequence of checks, and a named person signs off at each one. Nothing publishes on the writer's judgment alone, including work written by our most senior people.
The checks every page passes before it goes live
- Experience check. Does this piece contain something we learned by doing the work, or is it a summary of what is already published elsewhere? A summary goes back.
- Source check. Every statistic and every statement of fact about a platform is traced to a named, dated source and linked.
- Client claim check. Every number attached to a client is matched against the written confirmation we hold from that client.
- Language check. Every industry term is explained where it appears, and the piece is read once for whether a business owner would actually finish it.
- Reader check. Would somebody who came here with this question leave able to do something about it? If the honest answer is no, the piece is not finished.
- Sign-off. A named reviewer approves publication and their name goes on the page.
What each role actually checks
| Role | What this person checks | When it applies |
|---|---|---|
| Author | Wrote the original analysis and supplied the first-hand experience behind it | Every piece |
| Subject-matter reviewer | Technical accuracy and whether anything important is missing | Every piece |
| Editorial reviewer | Sourcing, language, and compliance with this policy | Every piece |
| Client verifier | The private business figures, the period they cover, and how they are framed | Any piece naming a client |
| Publisher | The final version, and the decision to put it live | Every piece |
Who signs off on claims about clients and results
For anything naming a client, two confirmations happen on top of the usual review. The account lead confirms what we actually did, because the person who ran the work is the only one who knows where the boundaries were. The client confirms the figures and the period they cover. We do not publish a client result the client has not seen in writing first. That applies to results we are proud of as much as to results from engagements that ended years ago.
How do we use AI tools to create our content?
We use artificial intelligence tools, usually shortened to AI, at specific points in the process. They organize research, draft structure, format, and check readability. They do not decide what is true, and they never produce a fact about a client.
| Stage of the work | What an AI tool does | What one of our people does |
|---|---|---|
| Choosing the topic | Groups the questions buyers ask and flags subjects we have not covered | Decides which of those we know enough to write about honestly |
| Planning the page | Drafts a structure and gathers published material on the subject | Sets the angle and decides what position we are taking |
| First draft | Builds factual scaffolding and summarizes public sources | Supplies what we saw on real accounts, and writes the judgment |
| Editing | Flags missing sections and checks readability | Verifies every source, confirms every client figure, checks the experience is real |
| After publishing | Flags facts that may have gone stale | Approves the update and adds what has been learned since |
What only a person does
One rule sits above the rest, and it has no exceptions: no client fact, result, credential, quotation, or third-party claim is ever generated by a tool. A tool asked for a plausible figure will produce a plausible figure, which is exactly what cannot go anywhere near a case study. One invented number would make every other number on this site worthless, including the true ones. The same applies to experience. When a guide says we watched something happen on an account, a person watched it happen.
Why we disclose AI use on everything we publish
We disclose on every page rather than only on the ones where we think you might wonder. A disclosure that shows up in some places and not others invites you to guess what triggered it, and the guess is usually worse than the truth. What we do not do is publish something generated end to end by a tool and present it as written by a person.
What sources and evidence do we need before we publish a claim?
Every externally verifiable factual claim is traced to a named, dated source you can open and read. Claims based on confidential client data are traced internally to the source system, the date range, and the client's confirmation, even where the underlying information cannot be published. Where we have neither a public source nor an internal one, the sentence comes out.
How we check client results before we publish them
| What we are claiming | What we need before it publishes | How it appears on the page |
|---|---|---|
| A performance figure from a client account | The source system, the exact comparison period, and written client sign-off | The figure, the period, and the system it came from |
| Results from an engagement that has ended | The above, plus confirmation that historical framing is accurate | Past tense, described as during our engagement, with dates |
| A number showing interest rather than a confirmed sale | A written definition of what was counted | Labelled for what it is. A click through to a marketplace is reported as a click, never as a sale |
| A fact about how a search or AI platform works | The platform’s own current documentation, with its date | Linked to the official source |
| Anything we cannot verify | There is no version of this that publishes | It does not appear |
What we will not publish
- A page built to cover a keyword variant of a question we have already answered.
- Work another agency did, described as ours.
- A dashboard screenshot without the date range visible in the image.
- A recommendation we would not give a paying client.
- A prediction about what a platform will do next, written as though it were a fact.
How often do we review and update what we publish?
Guidance about search, AI tools, and advertising platforms goes stale faster than almost any other business subject. We review evergreen guidance at least once a year. Anything describing how a specific platform behaves gets checked every quarter, which is roughly the pace at which those facts change. A confirmed platform change, a change in a client engagement referenced on the page, a reader telling us something is wrong, or our own team noticing a claim we would no longer make each trigger a review outside that schedule.
When we change the date on a page, and when we do not
The last-reviewed date changes when someone has actually checked or changed the content. It does not change because we would like the page to look fresh. When you see a review date on one of our pages, someone read that page on that date.
How do we handle corrections when we get something wrong?
We correct the error, note the correction on the page, and date it. We do not quietly edit a published claim and leave the page looking as though it always said the new thing. To tell us about an error, email info@limeadvertising.com with the page, the sentence, and what you believe is wrong. We reply within a few business days. A factual error is corrected and a dated note goes at the foot of the page saying what changed. Typographical fixes are not marked. Everything else is.
How our client relationships affect what we publish
We sell services connected to the platforms and channels we write about. Our published guidance is not conditioned on any commercial relationship. Where a piece recommends a specific platform we have a partner or reseller relationship with, we say so in that piece. Clients do not review our general guidance and have no say in what we recommend. Their approval covers the facts and figures we publish about their own business, and nothing beyond that.
About the author
Vitor Lima is President of Lime Advertising and the editorial reviewer for everything published on this site. He has spent more than 25 years building websites, online stores, and lead generation systems for businesses in Canada, the United States, and Brazil. He works most closely with franchise networks, law firms, home care companies, and product brands that sell through their own stores and through retailers. Read his full background on his profile page.
Published 29 July 2026 · Last reviewed 29 July 2026