# EduPeach methodology (version 0.1, draft) Published 2026-09-27. EduPeach publishes one editorial rating per course, out of five stars, based on recent online reviews, expert opinions and the quality of the evidence behind them. Where the evidence is not enough, we do not rate. ## Principles ### The learner comes first Every assessment says who a course is useful for, who it is not for, and which alternatives to consider, including free ones. ### Criteria before course names We define what a learner needs and how we will judge it before we compare courses with similar goals. The criteria are published and versioned. ### Editorial independence Affiliate links, sponsorships and free course access must be disclosed on the course page. They do not decide whether a course is included or how it is rated. Today EduPeach has none of these arrangements. ### Accountable conclusions Each rating names its author and reviewer, lists its sources, carries a date, states its limits and explains its reasoning. ### Visible corrections New evidence or a substantial change to the course triggers a re-assessment. Each update shows its date and reason. Withdrawn ratings stay visible as withdrawn. ## Criteria 1. **Fit for the learner**. Who is this course for? Learning goals, level, prerequisites and intended audience, checked against what high-school and university students actually need. 2. **Evidence of teaching quality**. Is there evidence that it teaches well? Clarity of explanations, progression, exercises, feedback and instructor expertise, as documented by learners and by experts with relevant competence. 3. **Experience and commitment**. What does it take to complete? Time required, accessibility, language, support and access conditions such as accounts, deadlines or software. 4. **Value compared with alternatives**. Is it worth it against the alternatives? Total cost, including certificates, against usefulness compared with similar courses, including free ones. 5. **Recency and updates**. Does the evidence match the current version? Dates of the reviews, of our checks and of the course version. Old reviews of a rewritten course weigh less or not at all. 6. **Reliability of the evidence**. Can the evidence be trusted? Independent sources, verifiable details, deduplication of republished reviews and the competence of the experts cited. ## Rating rules - One rating per course, set by the EduPeach editorial team. It is not an average of user votes and there is no public voting on EduPeach. - The review count is the number of distinct online reviews actually analysed for the current version of the course. A review republished on several sites is counted once. - Other research sources (provider pages, syllabi, expert commentary, forums) are listed separately from the counted reviews. - A course that has not completed an editorial assessment, or where the evidence is insufficient, shows 'Not yet rated'. It never shows zero. - 'Not yet rated' means EduPeach has not finished its analysis. It does not mean the course has no reviews online. ## Internal model (Design stage, not in operation) EduPeach is designing an internal model that flags reviews of doubtful reliability and lowers their weight inside the single editorial rating. It does not produce a separate score. Signals: - Repeated or near-identical text across reviews or platforms. - Unusual concentrations of reviews in a short period. - Details that do not match the course (topics, instructors, platform features). Safeguards: - Signals are indicators, not proof. Flagged cases go to an editor before any penalty. - Every penalty records its evidence and reasoning in the assessment. - Each assessment states the method version and the date. - Corrections and re-assessment follow the published process. - When evidence is insufficient, EduPeach abstains from rating. Not a signal on its own: - Few sources. Scarcity of reviews does not show poor quality. - Language, anonymity or a very positive or very negative tone, on their own. No weights, thresholds or validation results are published because none exist yet. They will be published with the method version that introduces them. ## Direct testing Ratings are based on online research. EduPeach does not claim to have taken a course unless the assessment names who took it, what was examined and when. ## Process 1. An editor drafts the assessment with sources, dates and reasoning. 2. A second person reviews it. Author and reviewer are named on the page. 3. The rating is published with the method version and the assessment date. 4. Corrections, re-assessments and withdrawals are logged with date and reason. ## Sources On 2026-09-27 the live Wirecutter pages returned HTTP 403 to automated requests. The texts were read from Internet Archive snapshots of the same URLs, dated as listed. EduPeach is not affiliated with, or endorsed by, Wirecutter or The New York Times. - Wirecutter editorial standards: https://www.nytimes.com/wirecutter/editorial-standards/ (accessed 2026-09-27, Internet Archive snapshot of 2026-04-10) - About Wirecutter: https://www.nytimes.com/wirecutter/about/ (accessed 2026-09-27, Internet Archive snapshot of 2026-09-17) - How we find and vet our expert sources: https://www.nytimes.com/wirecutter/blog/our-expert-sources/ (accessed 2026-09-27, Internet Archive snapshot of 2025-12-19) - How Wirecutter makes money: https://www.nytimes.com/wirecutter/reviews/how-wirecutter-makes-money/ (accessed 2026-09-27, Internet Archive snapshot of 2026-01-29) Wirecutter's standards are built around hands-on testing. EduPeach does not test courses and does not claim to. What transfers is the firewall, the source hierarchy, the treatment of provider claims, the vetting of experts and the corrections process. What EduPeach adds is its own rules on review recency, deduplication and reliability, because online reviews are our primary evidence, not a supplement. ## Changelog - v0.1 (2026-09-27): First public draft of principles, criteria and rating rules. No course rated.