Editorial Policy
Accuracy is the product. A concrete site can publish thousands of pages that read well and are quietly wrong, because most of what circulates online about concrete pricing, frost depth and code requirements is copied from other websites rather than from the documents that actually govern the work. This page sets out how we avoid that, and how to hold us to it.
Where our information comes from
Every factual claim on this site is traced to a source, and sources are not equal. We sort them into three tiers and we cite up the hierarchy whenever a Tier 1 document covers the question.
Tier 1 — primary and authoritative. These carry claims on their own.
- American Concrete Institute (ACI) — design codes and guides, including ACI 318, 332, 305, 306 and 308
- ASTM International — scope and purpose only, never the text or numeric limits inside a paywalled standard
- NRMCA Concrete in Practice — the free CIP series
- Portland Cement Association (cement.org)
- International Code Council (ICC)
- ADA.gov and the U.S. Access Board
- OSHA — including the respirable crystalline silica standard, 29 CFR 1926.1153
- EPA — stormwater and construction discharge rules
- U.S. Census Bureau, Bureau of Labor Statistics, NOAA, USGS, USDA NRCS
Tier 2 — reliable, but narrower. These carry a claim within their own domain.
- Manufacturer technical data sheets, for that manufacturer’s product only
- State DOT specifications, for that state only
- Industry associations such as ACPA, ASCC and ICRI
Tier 3 — market and price context only, always attributed as an estimate. Angi, HomeGuide, Concrete Network and trade press appear on this site only where the question is what things cost or what is common in the market, and they are always named in the text with the range they report. A Tier 3 source never supports a technical, code or safety claim.
Why we never cite one SEO site to another
This is the rule we care most about, because breaking it is how the concrete internet became unreliable.
Search “concrete price per cubic yard by state” and you will find dozens of pages with authoritative-looking tables. Follow their citations and a pattern appears: they cite each other. Site A attributes its figures to “NRMCA regional survey data,” site B cites site A, site C cites site B, and the number arrives at the top of the results looking like a national statistic. The NRMCA regional survey those pages invoke has no public dataset anyone can open and check. The chain has no bottom.
So we do not cite aggregators, content farms or programmatic-SEO sites as evidence for anything. Where a Tier 3 source is the only one reporting a market figure, we name it — “Angi reports,” “Concrete Network reports” — give its range, and say plainly that published sources disagree. Our methodology page shows exactly how far apart they are and what we publish instead.
We also never invent a URL. If we are not certain of a deep link, we link the organization’s root page.
Claims we deliberately hedge
Some numbers are repeated so often in the trade that they sound like standards. They are not, and we will not present them as though they were. Where these come up, our wording is deliberately more cautious than what you will read elsewhere.
| Widely repeated claim | How we treat it |
|---|---|
| “Concrete reaches 70% of design strength at 7 days” | A commonly cited industry approximation. It does not appear in ACI 318, ACI 308 or the NRMCA Concrete in Practice series. We label it as a rule of thumb or omit it. |
| Rebar spacing of 12–18 inches on center | Typical residential practice, not a code number. Spacing is engineer-specified under ACI 318. |
| Ready-mix truck capacity of 8–10 cubic yards, and short-load fees | Set by individual suppliers. There is no national standard for either. Call your plant. |
| Bag yields (an 80 lb bag ≈ 0.60 ft³) | Cited to the manufacturer’s technical data sheet, with a note that formulations vary between brands. |
| Foot traffic at 24–48 hours, vehicles at 7 days | Industry convention, not a standard. Conditions change it. |
| Frost depth by state | A reference range drawn from secondary compilations. The local building department governs, always. |
| Price per cubic yard | Given as the $110–$205 range, with each source named and the disagreement stated. |
Two categories get an even harder line. We never reproduce ASTM or ACI text, tables or numeric limits from inside a paywalled standard — we summarize the scope in our own words and link to the publisher. And we never state a jurisdiction-specific code, permit, inspection or licensing requirement as settled fact; we describe what generally applies and link to the authority that decides.
Any page touching structural adequacy, code, permits or licensing carries this line: General information, not engineering advice. Structural work should be designed by a licensed engineer.
How we use AI, stated plainly
Content on this site is drafted with AI assistance. We think readers are entitled to know that rather than discover it.
Here is what that does and does not mean. AI assists with drafting, structuring and translation. It does not decide what is true. Every factual claim is verified against a primary source before publication, every source in the list at the bottom of a page was checked to exist and to say what we claim it says, and a named human author is accountable for the finished page. We do not publish AI-drafted text that no human has verified, and “the model said so” is never a source.
Where the model produced a plausible number we could not trace to a primary document, the number does not appear on the page. That deletion happens more often than you would expect, and it is the main reason our figures are sometimes vaguer than a competitor’s.
Named authors and review
Every page names one of two authors, and that name is a statement of accountability, not a byline for decoration.
- Dan Reyes — 18 years as a concrete finisher and crew lead. Writes placement, finishing, repair and decorative topics.
- María Solano, P.E. — licensed professional engineer. Writes and reviews mix design, standards, code and structural topics.
Pages that make structural, code or materials claims get María’s review before publication regardless of who drafted them. Author pages list what each person has written: Dan Reyes and María Solano.
Review cadence
Every page carries a “last reviewed” date, and that date means a human opened the page and re-checked it — not that a script touched the file.
- Price and cost pages are reviewed quarterly, and whenever the Bureau of Labor Statistics producer price index for ready-mix concrete moves materially.
- Code and standards pages are reviewed annually, and immediately when a referenced standard is revised or superseded.
- Technique and how-to pages are reviewed every 18 months, or sooner if a reader reports a problem.
- Any page is reviewed as soon as a correction request arrives, regardless of when it was last checked.
If a source we relied on disappears or goes behind a paywall, we replace it or we soften the claim it supported.
Corrections
We would rather be corrected than be wrong, and we do not quietly edit mistakes away.
To report an error, email [email protected] with the page URL, the specific statement you believe is wrong, and — if you have one — the source that shows the correct information. A source is not required to file a report.
What happens next. We acknowledge every correction report within 3 business days. If the claim is wrong, we fix it, usually within 5 business days of confirming it.
How we mark it. A substantive correction — anything that changes a number, a recommendation or a factual statement — gets a dated correction note at the bottom of the page describing what was wrong and what it now says. The “last reviewed” date is updated. We do not delete the record of the error. Typographical and formatting fixes are made silently, since nothing a reader relied on has changed.
If we disagree with a correction request, we say so and explain why, citing the source we relied on.
Independence from advertising
ConcreteInfo is funded by display advertising and affiliate links. That funding never touches editorial decisions.
We do not accept payment for favorable coverage, for inclusion in a recommendation, or for a link. Advertisers do not see content before it publishes and have no right of review. Affiliate relationships do not determine which products we recommend or what an answer says, and a product that is wrong for the job is called wrong for the job whether or not we earn a commission on it. Affiliate links carry rel="sponsored nofollow". The full terms are in our affiliate disclosure and advertising disclosure.
We are also not a lead-generation business. We do not perform concrete work and we do not collect, broker or sell contractor leads, so no page here has a commercial reason to end with “call a pro.”
Questions about this policy
Email [email protected]. If you think this policy is wrong, or that we failed to follow it, we want to hear that too.