Editorial standards and corrections

Ski Resorts for Kings is an independent ski resort guide published by Kings Hospitality LLC. This page sets out the standards every page is held to, who is accountable for them, and how to tell us when we get something wrong. It sits alongside our how we rank methodology and our affiliate disclosure.

Who is accountable

Content is produced by the Ski Resorts for Kings editorial team and overseen by our co-founders and editors, Fredrik Filipsson and Morten Andersen. Every published page carries a visible byline and a last-reviewed date, and links back to the team responsible for it. You always know who stands behind what you are reading.

How we research and write

Each resort review opens with a plain verdict: who it suits and who should skip it. We build the stats behind that verdict, such as altitude, piste kilometres, lift counts, pass prices and transfer times, from resort operators, lift companies, official tourism data and on-the-ground reporting. Where a figure is uncertain or changes year to year, we give a conservative rounded range rather than a false-precision number, and we tell you to confirm critical details, such as opening dates and pass prices, directly before you book.

How we review before publishing

No page goes live on the strength of a single draft. Facts and figures are checked against primary sources, the verdict is pressure-tested against how the resort actually skis, and an editor signs off before publication. Rankings and best-of lists are ordered on merit using the same scoring framework for every resort, set out on our how we rank page. Commercial relationships never influence a score or a placement.

How we date and update content

Every review and guide shows a last-reviewed date. Prices, lifts, season dates and resort facilities change, so we revisit pages on a rolling schedule and after material changes at a resort, and we refresh the date when we make a substantive update. If a page falls out of date faster than we can refresh it, we would rather flag the uncertainty than leave a confident but stale claim standing.

Sources and citations

Where we state a hard fact, a price or a statistic, it comes from the resort, the lift or pass operator, an official tourism body, or our own reporting. We favour primary sources over aggregators. Where a claim is our judgement rather than a verifiable fact, we frame it as opinion, because a useful guide takes a position and says so plainly.

Corrections and fact-checking

We correct errors quickly and openly. If you spot a wrong price, an out-of-date lift count, a closed restaurant or anything else that is inaccurate, tell us through the contact form and we will check it against the source. When we change a material fact, we update the page and move its last-reviewed date forward. Significant corrections are noted on the page itself rather than changed silently. We do not remove honest criticism of a resort because an operator asks us to.

Independence and how we make money

Reviews are independent and unpaid. No resort, tourism board or operator can buy a rating, a place on a list, or a kinder verdict. We earn from qualified trip introductions to vetted operators and from some affiliate links for lift passes, transfers, lessons, ski hire and insurance, none of which changes an editorial score. The full detail is in our affiliate disclosure.

Use of software and AI tools

We use software to help with research, drafting and data handling across a large catalogue of resorts. Editorial judgement, the rankings, the verdicts and the final review of every page are human, made by the named editorial team, who are accountable for accuracy. We do not publish unreviewed machine-generated text, and we do not present anyone as a real person who is not.

Tell us we are wrong

The fastest way to make this guide better is to challenge it. Use the contact form for a correction, a missing resort, or a verdict you think we have called wrong, and a named editor will look at it.