Editorial policy
How we publish and update workflow content
This page explains how 3DKit Online approaches workflow guidance, tool explanations, corrections, and the line between a browser-based validation page and a broader production pipeline.
Last reviewed: March 26, 2026
What counts as publishable content here
We publish tool pages, workflow guides, comparison pages, and route explanations when they help users understand a real 3D production task. Pages should answer practical questions, not exist only to capture a query.
Source and quality expectations
We aim to ground pages in actual workflow needs: common engine expectations, file-format behavior, review steps, and decisions a technical artist or 3D team would realistically need to make.
When a page covers a route that is narrower than the full production problem, the page should say so plainly and point to the next validation step.
- Describe the workflow problem before describing the tool
- State format scope and important limitations clearly
- Avoid filler content that repeats headings without adding guidance
- Prefer explanation, examples, and caveats over query stuffing
How revisions and corrections work
We revise pages when a tool changes scope, a better workflow explanation is needed, or a factual or editorial correction is reported. Corrections should make a page clearer, more honest, and more useful, not just longer.
If a route or tool has meaningful constraints, those constraints should remain visible after the update.
What we avoid
We avoid publishing pages that merely repeat similar search terms, pages that overstate incomplete capabilities, and content that exists only to funnel users toward a tool without teaching them anything useful about the workflow.
- No vague all-in-one claims that the page cannot support
- No thin pages that differ only by keyword phrasing
- No hiding tool limits behind marketing language