EDITORIAL STANDARDS
Who publishes RestaurantsPager, how our guides are put together, and how to reach us when we get something wrong.
Who publishes RestaurantsPager, how our guides are put together, and how to reach us when we get something wrong.
Topics start with questions restaurant operators actually ask. Outside figures are linked to their source with an “as of” date.
A useful RestaurantsPager article should contain at least one detail that a manager can test without buying software. Examples include a charger-slot numbering pattern, a range-walk route, a spare-pager ratio, a sanitation station layout, a battery isolation process, or a closing-count sheet.
We also look for the physical constraint behind every recommendation. A page about SMS should explain when a pager is still better because the guest does not want to share a phone number. A page about AI phone hosts should explain that call handling is different from the ready-alert device handed to an arrived guest. A page about POS integration should show how a cleared-table event reaches the transmitter or host screen.
Claims are reviewed conservatively. We avoid invented ratings, unsupported market-share language, and broad promises that cannot be checked in a restaurant. When a guide mentions cost, range, lifespan, or replacement timing, it should describe the assumption behind the number: fleet size, building layout, shift length, charger routine, or warranty term.
The same standard applies to internal links. We prefer links that move a reader from a broad question to a narrower task, such as from buying pagers to testing range, from testing range to transmitter placement, or from charger setup to battery troubleshooting. Links added only for keyword volume are removed during review because they make the site feel repetitive and less useful.