How we decide what to publish.
We publish guidance that people make spending decisions on, some of it touching legal obligations. These are the rules we hold ourselves to, written down so you can hold us to them as well.
Every factual claim is sourced
Numbers, standards, dates, legal obligations, and statements about how a third-party system behaves all trace to a primary source listed on the page. Where a claim cannot be sourced, we soften it or cut it rather than publishing it on confidence alone. Sources are linked so you can check them rather than take our word.
Primary sources over commentary
Where a regulator, standards body, or platform has published something itself, we cite that rather than an article summarising it. Much of what circulates about New Zealand website obligations is overseas commentary applied to a jurisdiction it does not fit, which is precisely how the myth that New Zealand requires cookie consent banners became common knowledge.
Uncertainty is stated, not smoothed over
Some questions genuinely do not have settled answers. Whether the Human Rights Act extends to private websites has not been tested in a New Zealand court. The evidence for several popular AI visibility tactics is weak or contradictory. We say so. A confident answer to an unsettled question is worse than useless, because it is acted on.
Nothing is invented
No fabricated testimonials, no invented statistics, no awards we have not won, no client names we cannot use, no case studies describing work that did not happen. Concept work is labelled as concept work. Where a section would normally hold social proof and we do not yet have any, it stays empty rather than being filled.
Pricing is labelled as market data or as ours
Every dollar figure published on this site is a New Zealand market range drawn from published sources, not AntCrow's own pricing, and it is labelled that way in the sentence rather than in a footnote. We quote individual projects individually. Presenting market averages as our rates would be misleading, and reading them as our rates is the natural mistake to make.
Review dates are real
When a page says it was last reviewed on a date, someone read it on that date and checked that it still held. We do not bump dates to look fresh. That practice is common, and it corrodes the one signal a reader has for judging whether guidance is current.
We disclose our interest
AntCrow is a web design and engineering studio. When we write about choosing an agency, comparing platforms, or whether a service is worth buying, we have a commercial interest in the answer. We say so on the page. Where the honest answer is that you do not need what we sell, the guidance says that too.
Legal content is general information
We are not lawyers. Pages touching the Privacy Act, the Fair Trading Act, accessibility obligations, or any other legal matter explain what published sources say and link to the regulator. They are not advice about your circumstances, and they say so plainly rather than in small print.
Corrections
If something here is wrong or out of date, we want to know, and we would rather hear it from you than leave it standing. Email us with the page and what is incorrect. Substantive corrections are made to the page and the review date is updated to reflect the day the change was made. We do not quietly edit and backdate.
Report a correctionAntCrow
AntCrow is a web design and engineering studio. The studio also builds CheckMyBuilder, a public tool that indexes New Zealand building companies against the Companies Register, which is where much of our understanding of how customers vet businesses online comes from.
Content is researched, reviewed, and published under the studio's name rather than an individual byline, and the studio stands behind all of it.
About the studio