Editorial, ratings & reviews policy

Paw Rated helps you plan days out with your dog using clearly sourced research and, where completed, firsthand assessments. A researched listing is not a review or a recommendation based on a completed assessment.

Published and last updated: . Editorial responsibility: Fred McKie and Paula McKie. Paw Rated is operated by McKie Family Enterprises Ltd.

What our different listings mean

Researched listing: useful venue information supported by research. These pages do not carry a Paw Rating until a complete firsthand assessment has been published. A photograph from a past visit does not change that status.

Firsthand assessment: an assessment based on sufficient evidence from a real visit, using a named methodology version. It identifies the assessor, visit date, relevant context, score and verdict. Our experience on one occasion does not guarantee that every future visit will be the same.

Guides and selections: we explain the basis for including places and distinguish a researched selection from an assessment-based recommendation. Advertising cannot buy inclusion in an independent “best” selection. A paid placement is identified separately.

Sources, uncertainty and freshness

Dog-friendly can mean a bar, a dining room, a garden or a particular set of conditions. We record the supported detail rather than treating a general welcome statement as permission in every room. We keep venue-stated policy, direct confirmation and our own observations distinct.

Material researched facts should identify their source and checked date. A venue website is evidence of its published statement, not proof that we visited or independently tested every arrangement. Where a source or checked date has not been established, we say so. “Not verified” is different from “No”.

We do not infer free treats from a general mention of biscuits, a paid menu from an unspecified dog menu, secure enclosure from the word garden, or a dog-size limit from a photograph. We do not turn missing information into a negative fact.

Visit dates, source-check dates and page-update dates describe different events. Updating a page does not imply a new visit or a fresh check of every fact. Photos illustrate the recorded occasion and are not evidence that policies remain unchanged.

We review important policies when credible changes are reported and prioritise older checks as coverage grows. Please confirm essential arrangements with the venue before travelling, particularly room access, eating with a dog, party limits, bookings and opening arrangements.

Our firsthand visit standards

  1. Record the actual visit. Identify the venue, assessor, date and relevant context. Record the dogs present and practical circumstances where known, such as the area used, busyness and whether a meal was taken.
  2. Separate observation from assumption. Describe the areas and facilities actually experienced. A dog being admitted on one occasion does not establish a venue-wide rule.
  3. Support the score. Record all required criterion scores, notes and observations under the relevant methodology. Explain benefits and limitations in the public verdict. Incomplete evidence prevents publication of a score.
  4. Use original evidence accurately. Use our own notes and photographs, or material we have permission to publish. Do not reconstruct an assessment from a promotional description or infer a complete visit from a photo timestamp.
  5. Identify the person and method. A published assessment must identify its assessor, visit date and methodology version. A shared editorial-team credit on a researched page is not a claim that both founders assessed that venue.
  6. Disclose relevant relationships. Identify a free or discounted visit, sponsorship or affiliate relationship beside the relevant content before readers rely on the assessment.
  7. Check before publication. Confirm that the verdict, score, factual restrictions, sources and disclosures agree. Preserve the evidence and published version so a later correction can be explained.

Our pub scoring methodology explains the four weighted criteria, score anchors, caps, rounding and version history. Human service, food and atmosphere can provide useful narrative context, but they do not add an undisclosed fifth scoring criterion.

Independence and commercial disclosures

Our editorial conclusions and scores are not for sale. Businesses cannot purchase a better Paw Rating, pay to remove legitimate criticism or control an independent verdict. Factual corrections are considered on their evidence, regardless of commercial status.

Hosted or discounted visits: where a venue provides a relevant experience free of charge or at a discount, identify that relationship with the assessment. It does not remove the requirement for complete evidence or change the scoring formula.

Sponsored content and paid placements: clearly label these “Sponsored” or “Advertising” and distinguish them from independent editorial selections and ratings.

Affiliate links: disclose when we may receive a commission from a relevant link. Payment does not determine the score or editorial conclusion. Paid and affiliate links must use the appropriate sponsored-link treatment.

Personal connections or other material interests that could affect how readers judge an assessment should also be disclosed. No relationship should be assumed merely because a venue appears in the directory.

Corrections, disputes and changed policies

  1. Send a correction with the venue, the disputed statement, the proposed change and supporting information. Include a date where relevant. Venue owners and visitors use the same editorial review process.
  2. We check the evidence against the current listing and, where necessary, the venue or another reliable source. A submission does not automatically change a fact or score.
  3. Where a material policy is uncertain, qualify or remove the unsupported claim while it is checked. Preserve the distinction between an incorrect original statement and a policy that changed after a genuine visit.
  4. Update the relevant fact, source and check information when supported. Explain significant corrections or assessment changes on the affected page. A changed policy does not silently rewrite what happened on an earlier visit.
  5. Where reassessment is required, complete the relevant assessment process. Withdraw or replace an outdated assessment through that process, retaining its history; never recalculate historical scores silently under a new methodology.

We welcome disagreement supported by specific evidence. A business can challenge accuracy without buying a commercial package. We do not promise that every request will result in removal or a different verdict.

Editorial assistance and accountability

Tools can assist research, organisation and drafting, but do not establish a venue fact, firsthand visit or score. The editorial team remains responsible for checking material claims against the cited evidence and for approving what is published. We do not create fabricated visits, testimonials, identities or citations.

Know somewhere we should consider? Recommend a place. For other enquiries, contact Paw Rated. See our Privacy Policy for how submissions are handled.

Policy history

6 November 2026: initial published editorial policy, bringing together listing status, evidence, visit, disclosure and correction standards. The approved pub-v1.0 scoring rules are published separately with their own version history.