How we make these comparisons
We explain each pair of terms from extension, agency and research sources, then list what to check on the bag in your hand.
- Sources
19 extension publications, agency pages, studies and standards, each with a link, retrieval date and supporting passage.
- Claims
171 short statements, each tied to at least one of those sources and kept within its scope.
- Checks
Build checks flag missing references, inconsistent data and repeated content before a page is published.
- Pages
11 comparisons build their answers, tables, setting notes and drawing captions from those claims. The Sources page links each claim back.
Sources first
We use university extension publications, agency guidance, published research and standards. A source record includes its publisher, link, retrieval date, and a supporting passage or page reference. The references and claim notes are collected on a separate Sources page.
The source registry connects claims to their references. We keep statements within the scope of those references; a source about a tested mix does not establish the properties of a bag you have not tested.
How we choose sources
We never rely on a manufacturer or seller alone for a statement about how a material behaves. We keep the list short and add a publication only when none of the registered sources supports a statement. We use an extension article that may since have been replaced only for terminology, and mark it for a recheck.
When sources disagree, we say so instead of choosing one. Numbers appear only inside a statement that names its source and the conditions it describes, such as a tested mix or container height.
Claims, then pages
We keep claims in a shared record and use them in the direct answer, comparison table, context notes and drawing captions. We describe tendencies in words, with qualifications where the evidence varies. A comparison can leave a property unrated.
Checks and their limits
Claim wording is compared with the recorded source passages. Automated checks look for missing references, inconsistent data, repeated content and certain unsupported wording.
Those checks can miss a mistaken interpretation or a claim used outside its source's scope. No soil scientist, horticulturist or other specialist has reviewed these pages, and no growing trials were run. You can inspect the cited evidence and send a correction with the passage in question.
Corrections
If a statement does not match its source, or goes further than the source does, send the page address, the sentence and the source passage to support@soilversus.com. We correct or remove a wrong statement and change the comparison’s “Updated” date. The Sources page always shows the current wording of every statement.
The drawings
The pot drawings share a format so you can follow the watered, drained and drying states. Distributed blue marks illustrate wetting and drying. Their size and position do not measure water capacity, predict a saturation height, or set a watering interval. Read each state's caption for the sourced explanation.
The material colors help you follow names across the page. The chips and drawings are illustrative; they cannot identify the contents or grade of a product.
Photographs
Photographs show examples of materials. We record the creator, source, license and changes to each image, with credit beside the photograph and on the credits page. The photographs do not document tests of the bag you are considering.
Publication and source dates
Publication dates record when a comparison first appeared. Content-update dates record changes to that comparison. Each source has its own "Retrieved" date for access to the cited material. Updating a page does not mean we retrieved all its sources again.
Using the comparison
Start with the direct answer, then choose your growing setting. Use how to read a soil bag for the product details to check next, and see what a comparison can and cannot settle for questions that need evidence beyond a category name.