Our editorial standards
Anything we publish carries our name, so it is worth being specific about how it gets made. This page describes what we write about, who reviews it, where the claims come from, and what we do when something turns out to be wrong.
What we publish and why
We publish practical guidance for cannabis retailers and brands: how storefronts get built, what search engines can read on them, how state rules land on the pages you actually publish, and what the work looks like day to day once a site is live. The material comes from running the platform behind 300+ dispensary websites, which means we tend to write about the questions operators bring us repeatedly rather than the topics that happen to have search volume.
Everything we publish is informational. It is not legal advice, and it is not a substitute for guidance from your own counsel or from your state regulator. Where an article touches regulation, treat it as a starting point for a conversation with someone who can advise on your specific license.
Who reviews our content
Every article is reviewed by Buddy’s Director of Sales and Operations before publication. That review covers accuracy of the platform claims, whether the regulatory statements match the source they cite, and whether the piece is genuinely useful to the retailer or brand it is written for. The reviewer works directly with the retailers and brands the articles are about, which is the point: content is checked by someone who would hear about it immediately if it were wrong. The reviewer’s name and role appear on every article byline and link to their article index.
How we source claims
Regulatory statements name the responsible state agency, the bulletin, or the statute they come from, so you can read the source yourself rather than take our summary on faith. Where a rule has changed or been restated over time, we say when.
Claims about the platform describe features that exist today. We do not describe roadmap items in the present tense, and we do not imply capability we cannot demonstrate on a call. If we cannot source a statistic to something specific, we do not publish the statistic. That rule costs us some punchy sentences and we keep it anyway.
What we do not do
We do not publish fabricated reviews, invented customer quotes, or composite testimonials presented as real ones. We do not name clients without their permission. We do not publish star ratings or review markup for our own product anywhere on this site.
We do not give legal advice, and we do not suggest ways to work around a regulation. We also do not publish articles written purely to rank. If a piece would not help the person reading it, the fact that people are searching for the phrase is not a good enough reason to write it.
How we keep content current
Cannabis regulation changes frequently, and an accurate article can quietly become an inaccurate one without a word of it being edited. Articles carry a visible published date and, once revised, a “last updated” date. We revise a piece when the underlying rule changes, when a platform feature it describes changes, or when a reader shows us that something is unclear. Where a change is material rather than cosmetic, we say what changed inside the article rather than silently swapping the text.
Corrections
If you find an error, tell us. Email buddy@hellobuddy.app with the article and the specific passage, and include the source you are working from if you have one. We review every report. When a correction is warranted we make it, note it on the article, and update the “last updated” date. You can also reach us through the contact page or read everything we have published.
Ready to Scale?
Partner with Buddy to build scalable commerce and brand infrastructure tailored to your business.