How I Test
Every review and income article on AIEarnerHub.com follows the same process. This page spells it out so you can judge whether my conclusions deserve your trust.
By Tom Morgan. Last reviewed: October 2026.
The principle
I test how people actually make money with AI, then write down what’s true. That means the order matters: run it, record it, then form an opinion. The opinion comes last.
The process
1. Use the tool on a real task
I sign up and run the tool against actual work, not a demo prompt. No write-up runs from a press kit, a feature list or a landing page alone. If I haven’t used it, I either don’t write about it or I label the piece Researched and say so.
2. Track what it saves or earns
I record the result against the same task done without the tool: time, cost, and output quality. Subscriptions and platforms are judged on what they cost to run profitably, not just to sign up for.
3. Check it against the marketing
I compare what the tool actually did with what its sales page claims. If they don’t match, the review says so. If the pricing makes the tool uneconomical for most readers, the review says that too, rather than quietly leaving the tool out.
4. Show ranges, not the best number
When results vary widely, I show the range and explain what drives the difference, such as prior skill, audience or client list. A single impressive number without its conditions isn’t evidence.
5. Name the sources
Claims from outside my own testing are attributed to a named source. A claim I can’t verify doesn’t get published.
6. Label how proven it is
| Label | Meaning |
|---|---|
| Tested | I ran it on a real task and recorded the result. |
| Researched | Based on documented sources, not on my own run. |
| Speculative | An emerging model with no real evidence yet that it holds up. |
7. Revisit and retire
Tools and pricing change fast. Older articles are updated or retired rather than left standing. The last-reviewed date at the top of a piece tells you which version you’re reading, and changes are listed in the Corrections and Updates log.
What I don’t do
- I don’t publish invented screenshots or theoretical income projections presented as fact.
- I don’t let a paid relationship decide whether a tool is recommended or how it’s rated. See the Affiliate and Partner Disclosure.
- I don’t present one person’s result, including mine, as typical.
- I don’t leave outdated recommendations live because they once performed well.
The limits of my testing
Hands-on testing shows what happened for me, on my tasks, at one point in time. It doesn’t prove the same result for you. That’s why every article covers who a method suits and who it doesn’t, and why you should read the Income Disclaimer before acting.
Challenge my work
If you think something is wrong, outdated or unfairly rated, send the article link and the specific line through the Contact page with the subject “Correction: [article title]”. I check it against current sources and fix the piece.
See also: Reviews · FAQ · About