A clear walkthrough of the steps we follow, from the first site assessment to the final handover. You will know what to expect at each stage, how long things take, and where you have room to make changes.
A clear walkthrough of the steps we follow, from the first site assessment to the final handover. You will know what to expect at each stage, how long things take, and where you have room to make changes.
Every review on SolarSiphon passes through a documented pipeline: submission, technician cross-check, climate tagging, and publication. Here is the timeline we follow and the constraints that shape it.
Your review lands in our queue with a basic check for completeness: system type, tank capacity, city, and installation year. Incomplete entries are returned with a short note listing what is missing. No edits are made to your wording at this stage.
A field technician reviews the technical claims: collector model, backup element wattage, and reported output. If a claim looks inconsistent with the system specs, we flag it and ask for a clarification rather than silently correcting it.
We attach the relevant climate zone and season so the review is read in context. A winter reading from Jaipur is not compared directly with a summer reading from Kochi. This tagging is automatic but reviewed manually before publication.
Once published, the review is open for comments and follow-up questions. The original author is notified when someone asks for more detail. We do not remove critical reviews unless they violate our factual guidelines.
Thirty days after publication, we send a short follow-up to the reviewer asking about any maintenance issues or performance changes. These updates are appended to the original review with a clear date stamp.
Every quarter, we compile anonymized summaries from reviews in the same city and system category. These summaries appear on the relevant review pages and help new readers see patterns without reading every single entry.