1. Start with a testable fishing question
A useful test asks something observable: which colour caught more in this session, whether a static lure beat an active retrieve, whether two tackle setups could both land bass, or whether a location theory actually put us on fish.
2. Share conditions wherever they matter
Tide, water clarity, wind, light, depth, fish presence and prey can all change a result. We record what is available and avoid presenting the outcome as detached from those conditions.
3. Compare in the same session when practical
Same-day comparisons reduce one of the biggest weaknesses in fishing advice: comparing a good day with one method against a bad day with another. Some videos are field stories rather than controlled comparisons; those are labelled and written accordingly.
4. Reduce obvious angler bias
Where possible we swap rods, methods, lures or anglers, rotate options, and avoid giving one side of a comparison all of the best water. Perfect control is rarely possible on a moving boat with moving fish, so the limitation remains visible.
5. Publish the actual outcome near the top
We do not make search visitors read a thousand words before seeing the point. When a numerical score is verified, it is stated directly. When the available record does not support an exact score, we do not invent one.
6. The video is the primary source
Every evidence page links to the matching BassLureFish long-form video. The written page is a searchable index to the field evidence, not a replacement for it.
7. Repeat questions when conditions change
Repeated tests are especially valuable. Lure colour is a good example: clear shallow water, deeper coloured water and a later three-colour test produced different contexts. The archive lets those results sit together rather than pretending one session closed the argument.
8. Correct the record
If a factual score, date or description is wrong, BassLureFish will correct the evidence page and update its modified date. See the editorial and corrections policy.