Editorial Policy
We separate traditional use, cultural context, food use, and research summaries as clearly as possible.
Each herb page should explain the English name, pinyin, Chinese characters, Latin name, part used, traditional nature and flavor, channel entry, plain-English traditional uses, common food uses where relevant, and an explicit caution block.
This structure keeps the library useful for beginners while still giving advanced readers enough detail to see the herb in context.
Herb content on the internet is often too confident. HerbGuide aims to be more disciplined. If evidence is mixed, limited, preliminary, or mostly traditional, the wording should make that clear.
We would rather sound measured than overclaim and lose trust.
HerbGuide separates traditional literature, modern research, culinary tradition, and editorial explanation whenever possible. Classical herb language should be identified as traditional context. Modern studies should be summarized carefully, with uncertainty preserved rather than smoothed over.
We aim to avoid citation theater, exaggerated certainty, and the habit of turning one study or one tradition quote into a broad consumer claim.
Pages may be revised over time as terminology improves, research develops, or editorial clarity increases. When meaningful corrections are needed, the goal is to make the page more accurate, more transparent, and easier for readers to interpret responsibly.
See it in action
Keep exploring
Editorial pages do not need to be dead ends. The best next stops are usually the Glossary, Basics, and Herb Library, where readers can see these rules applied on real pages.