Meet the Say It Better Editorial Team
Who writes and maintains this site, how our articles are researched and reviewed, and how to tell us when something is wrong.
Who we are
Say It Better is run by a small editorial team. We don't publish bylines for a roster of individual staff writers, because there isn't one — articles are researched, drafted, and checked collectively, and they are attributed to the Say It Better Editorial Team.
Every article on the site is read and approved by our editor, B.L. Cummings, before it is published. That is a real, named person doing a real review pass, and their page describes exactly what it involves.
We want to be equally clear about what we are not. We hold no clinical, legal, or medical credentials, and we don't claim any. No article on this site has been reviewed or endorsed by a licensed therapist, psychologist, counselor, attorney, or medical professional. We don't describe ourselves as credentialed communication professionals. What we offer is general communication guidance, grounded in frameworks that are publicly documented and credited to the people who developed them.
Why Say It Better exists
Most communication advice online is vague. "Be assertive." "Communicate openly." "Set boundaries." It sounds like guidance and helps nobody when you are staring at a message you don't know how to answer.
This site was built around a narrower idea: give people words they can actually use, for the specific situation in front of them — a difficult email, an apology that needs to land, a limit that has to be held without damaging the relationship. That standard decides what gets published here and what doesn't.
What the editorial team does
Choosing what to write
We pick topics from the situations readers actually ask about — the difficult email, the apology that needs to land, the boundary that has to be set. Reader questions, the contact form, and the phrases people search for all feed the list.
Researching and drafting
Each article starts with the established, publicly documented frameworks that already exist on the subject — the SBI feedback model, nonviolent communication, the components of an effective apology — before a word of the draft is written.
Checking every article
Nothing publishes unread. Drafts are checked for accuracy, for whether sources are named where research is referenced, and for whether the advice is specific enough to use in a real conversation today.
Maintaining what is live
Published articles are revisited to fix errors, refresh examples, and keep the guidance current. A correction that reaches us is treated as work to do, not a complaint to manage.
How our content is made
The same process applies to every article on the site.
How topics are selected
Topics come from real reader needs rather than search volume alone. We look at what people ask us directly, which situations the response generator is used for most, and which questions keep coming up. A topic earns a page when we can say something genuinely useful about it — if we can only repeat generic advice, we don't publish it.
How articles are researched
Before drafting, we identify the established frameworks and published research that already address the subject. We read the primary source where one exists — the original paper, book, or author's own description of a model — rather than a blog post summarising it. Where a subject has no established framework behind it, we say so and keep the guidance to what we can honestly describe from common experience.
How sources are evaluated
We prefer primary, peer-reviewed, or directly attributable sources. A framework is credited to the person who developed it. Where we cite a study or statistic, we name the original source rather than a secondary summary, and we avoid numbers we cannot trace back. Where the evidence on a subject is thin, mixed, or contested, we say that rather than overstating certainty — a qualified claim is more useful than a confident one we can't stand behind.
How AI tools assist — and what they don't do
We use AI tools to help with outlining, brainstorming angles, and producing early drafts. That is the whole of their role. AI output is never published as it comes back to us. The final wording, the examples, the framing, and the advice are written and revised by the editorial team, and every article is read and approved by a human before it goes live. We also use AI for the response generator, which is a separate tool and is labelled as AI-generated wherever it appears. You can read more in our Editorial Policy.
How humans review and edit
Every draft is read end to end by our editor before publishing. Unsupported claims are removed or qualified, vague advice is rewritten until it is usable, and any example that wouldn't survive being said out loud in the situation it describes gets cut. If a piece can't meet that bar, it doesn't publish.
How corrections are handled
If we get something wrong, we fix it. Factual errors are corrected as soon as we become aware of them, and we prefer to correct plainly rather than quietly. Where a correction changes the substance of a claim, we update the article rather than leave the old version standing. You do not need a reason we agree with to report something — if it looks wrong to you, we want to know.
How articles are updated
Communication guidance ages slowly, but sources, examples, and research move on. Published articles are revisited periodically to verify accuracy, check that cited sources still exist and still say what we claimed, refresh dated examples, and confirm the guidance is still current. Updates are made in place, and the article's revision date reflects the most recent pass.
Our AI disclosure, in one place
AI tools help us outline, brainstorm, and produce early drafts. They do not decide what we publish, and their output is never published as it comes back to us — everything is rewritten, checked, and approved by a person first.
Our response generator is a separate, clearly labelled AI tool. Its suggestions are starting points for you to adapt, not expert-authored guidance. The full statement is in our Editorial Policy.
Spotted a factual error? Tell us.
We take reader corrections seriously and we act on them. If something here is inaccurate, outdated, or attributed to the wrong source, email us at hello@sayitbetter.org or use our contact page.
It helps if you tell us the article and the specific sentence you're questioning, but it isn't required — a note saying something looks wrong is enough for us to look into it. We correct errors promptly and update the article rather than leaving the old claim standing.
Suggest a topic
If there's a conversation you can't find help with here, we'd like to hear about it. Reader requests are one of the main ways topics get chosen.
Read the full standards behind all of this in our Editorial Policy, or get in touch through the contact page.
Last updated: October 10, 2026