How Vacuum Wise reviews are written

Every review on this site is written from the manufacturer’s published specifications and documentation for that model. This page says exactly what that means, and where it falls short.

The source

A review starts from the product’s specification sheet, its listing, and where available the manufacturer’s manual. The figures a review quotes — suction in pascals or air watts, motor power, run time and charge time, battery capacity, bin or bag volume, filter type and whether the system is sealed, cord length and reach, weight, noise where stated, and for robots the mapping technology, dock functions and mop type — are the manufacturer’s figures, restated. We do not measure any of them.

Where a manufacturer publishes a figure under a stated condition, the condition matters. A run time quoted on the lowest power setting with no motorised head attached is not the run time you get on carpet at full power, and a review should say which one it is quoting.

What a review does with the figures

A specification is only useful against a question. Twenty thousand pascals is a headline number for a robot and means little without knowing the brush and the floor; a 0.5-litre bin is generous on a handheld and cramped on a stick vacuum expected to do a whole house. So each review reads the model’s figures against the kind of home its category implies — a flat with hard floors for a stick, a carpeted house for an upright, a car for a handheld — and says who the numbers suit and who they do not.

Suction figures deserve particular caution. Pascals, air watts, kilopascals and “suction power” in watts are not the same measurement and are not convertible, and a review compares them only within one unit and one type of product.

What a review does not do

No hands-on testing. No pick-up test, no run-time measurement, no noise reading, no reliability observation. Any sentence in a review that reads like an observation is an inference from the published specification, and where that is not clear the sentence is wrong and should be corrected.
No ratings or review counts. We do not publish star ratings, owner review counts, or anything derived from customer reviews.
No prices. A price captured when a review was written is wrong by the time you read it.
No defaults. Where a manufacturer does not publish a figure, the review does not fill the gap with a plausible one.

The 2026 clean-up

Until September 2026 the site also carried reviews of a vacuum sealer and a carpet sweeper — products that share a word with vacuum cleaners and are not them. On 2026-09-12 we classified all 124 pages by the product named in their title and removed 2 from search indexing. The rule was simple: if the product is not a vacuum, the review is not part of this site’s subject. The 122 pages that remain are vacuums, and the categories above contain nothing else.

The removed reviews were not deleted. They still resolve for anyone who has a link to one, and they still carry the same disclosure and the same affiliate links. They are simply no longer offered to search engines.

Where this method fails

It inherits every weakness of its source. If a manufacturer quotes an optimistic run time, the review repeats it. If a listing gives suction in a unit nothing else uses, the review can say so but cannot translate it. If a specification is missing, so is that part of the review.

It also cannot tell you anything a specification does not encode: how well a brush roll actually handles long hair, how the vacuum feels at the end of a flight of stairs, how a robot copes with a black rug or a phone charger, how long the battery holds its capacity after two years. Those are the things a hands-on test would tell you, and this site does not do one.

Accountability

Reviews are published under the editorial name Caleb Turner, which is disclosed as a pen name. The method above is the point of accountability: if a review departs from it, the review is wrong and should be corrected, and there is no biography to hide behind.