Editorial Standards

Why This Page Exists

Fragrance media has a credibility problem. Most "fragrance encyclopedia" sites republish manufacturer marketing copy, or scrape competing databases, or generate generic AI summaries with no oversight. We publish this page so readers know exactly how Fragranova differs.

Authorship

Every fragrance page on Fragranova carries an editorial paragraph ("Fragranova Take" or "Editor's Read") that is original content written by our editorial team and published under the "Fragranova Editors" byline. Community reviews on each page are attributed to individual signed-in users.

Long-form blog content is written by our editorial team. Each blog post displays a publication date; we update posts when the underlying market changes (for example, when a popular clone is reformulated).

Use of AI

We use large language models (currently OpenAI's GPT-4o family) for the first draft of catalog-scale content — specifically, the per-fragrance editorial paragraphs across our 9,500+ entries. We disclose this because we believe readers deserve transparency about how content is produced.

Our process: AI drafts a paragraph using only structured facts we already have (notes, accords, performance percentages, perfumer attribution, release year). Our editorial team then reviews drafts, removes clichés, corrects any factual drift, and ships under editorial oversight. We do not allow AI to invent claims that aren't supported by our structured data.

Long-form blog content — guides, comparisons, "best of" lists — is written by our editorial team without AI generation.

Data Sourcing

• Composition data (notes, accords, perfumer) is aggregated from public manufacturer listings, brand websites, and community submissions. We cross-check between sources before publication.
• Community ratings (longevity, sillage, season, day/night, gender suitability) are submitted by signed-in users. Display weight scales with vote count: a fragrance with three votes is labeled "early reads"; one with hundreds is treated as established consensus.
• Clone relationships are submitted by community members and reviewed by editors before publication. We require at least one verifiable source per match.

Independence

Fragranova earns revenue from contextual advertising and from affiliate commissions on retailer links (Amazon, FragranceX, FragranceNet, Sephora). These commercial relationships do not influence editorial coverage:

• Best-of lists, clone recommendations, and verdicts inside individual fragrance pages are based purely on community data and editor judgment.
• Retailer placement on a fragrance's "Where to Buy" widget is determined by availability, not commission rate.
• We do not accept payment for inclusion in a guide or for positive coverage of a specific release.

Corrections Policy

If you find a factual error — wrong perfumer, missing or misattributed note, incorrect launch year, miscategorized clone — please email corrections@fragranova.com with at least one source supporting the correction. We respond within 72 hours and update verified corrections immediately.

For editorial complaints (tone, framing, lack of context): same address. We re-review and either revise or explain why we're holding the original framing.

What We Do Not Do

• We do not copy or republish content from other fragrance databases. Our editorial paragraphs are written for Fragranova.
• We do not publish sponsored "editorial" content disguised as independent coverage.
• We do not auto-generate full fragrance descriptions from a prompt with no fact grounding — every AI-assisted draft is bounded by our structured data.

Questions?

Email hello@fragranova.com for anything not covered above.

Last updated: May 21, 2026