How to Write a 'How We Picked' Section That Readers Trust
Most buyer guides have a "how we picked" or "how we tested" section, and most of them say nothing: "We spent hours researching the best products and selected these based on quality, features and value." That sentence could sit under any list of anything. Readers skim past it, Google's reviewers are told to distrust it, and it does the opposite of what it's there for.
This post covers what the section is actually for, the four things it has to say, how to word it when the products weren't tested, how long it should be and where it goes, the versions that read as fake, and a template. It builds on the E-E-A-T post, which covers what Google means by experience; this is the section where a page shows it.
The short answer
Say what you compared, where the facts came from, what you ruled out, and what you own. Three or four short paragraphs after the product sections, with a one-line version near the top. Never claim testing you didn't do; name the method you did use. Cut every sentence that could sit under a different guide unchanged.
What the section is for
Two readers. The first has read the picks and has one doubt: who are these people and why should I believe them? The section answers that in thirty seconds or loses them.
The second is a quality rater, or Google's systems trained on what raters reward, looking for whether the page's recommendation is backed by a method. Google's review guidance asks reviewers to show "how" they evaluated something, with evidence; this section is where a page does it.
Neither reader wants to be sold to. The section is a method statement, and it reads best written like one.
The four things it must say
| Say | Example | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|
| What you compared | "Fourteen front lights between 800 and 1,600 lumens, on runtime, beam shape, mount and weight" | Shows the picks came from a field, not a search box |
| Where the facts came from | "Manufacturer spec sheets, the manuals, and roughly 400 owner reviews, weighted to the 3-star ones" | Honest about method; lets the reader judge it |
| What you ruled out and why | "Anything under 4 hours on high, and two models with recurring mount complaints" | Ruling out is what choosing looks like |
| What you own or used | "We've ridden with the top pick since spring; the rest we haven't used" | The experience claim, sized to the truth |
Four things, four short paragraphs, or four sentences on a shorter guide. If one of them is missing, the section is a disclaimer rather than a method.
Honest wording when you haven't tested
Most affiliate guides are written from listing data, manuals and owner reviews, and that's a legitimate method as long as it's stated. The wording that works is plain: "We compared these on their published specs and on what owners report after months of use; we haven't used them ourselves."
Then the thing you do have: "We own the X and have used it for a year." A reader trusts a page that knows the limits of its own knowledge.
What doesn't work is the implied test: "performed well", "felt solid", "in our experience", when there was no experience. The specs post covers why models produce those phrases from listing data; the editing pass removes them, and this section is where the honest version goes instead.
Length and placement
Three to four paragraphs, 120 to 200 words, after the last product section and before the FAQ. That's where a reader looks for it once the picks have raised the question.
Add a one-line version near the top of the guide, under the intro or beside the verdict: "Compared on specs, manuals and owner reviews; we own the top pick." The one-liner does most of the trust work for skimmers, and the full section is there for the reader who wants it.
A "how we tested" section that runs 600 words on methodology for a page about kettles is padding, and reads as padding.
The versions that read as fake
- The universal paragraph. "We researched extensively and selected based on quality, performance and value." Fits every product on earth, so it says nothing about these.
- Invented numbers. "Over 40 hours of testing" on a site with no photos of anything. Raters and readers both ask where the hours went.
- A lab that doesn't exist. "Our testing team" on a one-person site. The about page gives it away.
- Criteria with no consequences. A list of six factors, none of which ruled anything out.
- The same section on every guide. Copy-pasted method text is a template, and the reader has seen it on the last guide.
A template
Fill the brackets, cut what doesn't apply:
"We looked at [number] [products] in the [range or category], comparing them on [the three or four specs that decide it]. The facts come from [manufacturer specs / manuals / owner reviews, with a note on how many and which ones].
We ruled out [what, and the reason]. Of the picks, we [own / have used / haven't used] [which]; the rest are compared on the sources above. Prices aren't shown because they change; the buttons go to the current listing."
Eighty words, specific to the guide, and nothing in it that another guide could reuse.
Doing it with AffSERP
AffSERP's X Best Review tool writes a "how we picked" section into every guide from what it actually did: the number of products it pulled from Amazon, the specs it ranked on, and the fact that it worked from listing data and owner reviews rather than hands-on use.
That's the honest version by default. The one line it can't write is the fourth: what you own or have used. Add it in the editor, in a sentence, and the section is complete; the editing post has it as part of the fifteen-minute pass.
FAQ
What should a 'how we picked' section include?
Four things: what you compared (the products and the specs that mattered), where the facts came from (listings, manuals, owner reviews, your own use), what you ruled out and why, and what you actually own or used. Three or four short paragraphs. Anything beyond that is padding.
Where does the 'how we picked' section go?
After the product sections and before the FAQ, with a one-line version near the top. The reader who wants it looks for it after the picks; the reader who doesn't shouldn't have to scroll past it. The one-liner near the top ('compared on specs, manuals and 400 owner reviews; we own the top pick') does most of the trust work.
Can I say 'we tested' if I haven't?
No. It's the one claim that can't be walked back, it's what Google's reviewers are told to look for evidence of, and a reader with the product spots the gap. Say what you did instead: compared, read, checked, owned. Honest method wording reads as more credible than a testing claim with nothing behind it.
Does the section help rankings?
Indirectly. Google's review guidance asks for evidence of how a reviewer evaluated products, and the section is where that evidence lives. It also lowers bounce from readers who were about to leave over a doubt. There's no ranking switch it flips; it's one of the things that makes a page look like a considered review rather than a list.
Keep reading
