Editorial Standards

Resort Flock is an independent encyclopedia of all-inclusive resorts. We are not owned by any resort chain, hotel group, or booking platform. We don't accept payment from resorts for coverage, favorable placement, or review scores. Our only financial relationships are standard affiliate arrangements (such as Booking.com) where we may earn a commission if you book through a link — this never influences how we rate or describe a property.

Our goal is to be the most factually complete and useful resource for travelers researching all-inclusive resorts — covering dining, rooms, pools, activities, spa facilities, and what's actually included in the rate vs. what costs extra.

Each resort profile is built from multiple primary sources:

• Official resort website — room categories, dining menus, activity lists, spa services, and what's included
• Review platforms — TripAdvisor, Google, Booking.com, and others for guest ratings and sentiment
• Editorial reviews — professional travel publications (Oyster, TripSavvy, Condé Nast Traveler) for balanced perspective
• Resort press materials — official announcements, awards, and accolades

We use AI tools to help research, organize, and draft this content at scale across 700+ resorts. All AI-generated content is reviewed against our editorial standards before publishing — we check factual claims, flag marketing language, and apply our content quality rules to ensure the copy is specific, honest, and useful rather than generic.

We do not publish AI output unreviewed. If a Gemini or Claude draft contains a claim we can't verify (a restaurant name, an award, a room size), we remove or correct it.

The Resort Flock Rating (shown as a score out of 10) is a weighted aggregate of verified guest ratings from multiple platforms. We do not make up scores or adjust them based on relationships with resorts.

The formula:

1. Collect all available scores from TripAdvisor, Google, Booking.com, and other platforms — using exact decimal scores, not rounded figures
2. Normalize each score to a 10-point scale
3. Weight by review count: resorts with more reviews carry more weight (≤1,000 reviews = weight 1, 1,001–5,000 = weight 2, 5,001+ = weight 3)
4. Compute the weighted average and round to one decimal place

This produces a score that reflects breadth of guest feedback, not just one platform's rating. A resort with 4,000 TripAdvisor reviews carries more weight than one with 80 Booking.com reviews.

Our news coverage tracks openings, renovations, brand changes, and industry developments in the all-inclusive resort market. Sources include Travel Weekly, Skift, Hotel Dive, Caribbean Journal, and official resort announcements.

Articles are written to our editorial style guide: original content based on sourced reporting (not copied from press releases), specific facts and figures, context explaining why developments matter, and internal links to relevant resort and brand profiles. We don't publish AI-generated articles verbatim — each piece is written to our standards before going live.

Resort information changes — restaurants close, properties renovate, ratings shift. We update profiles when we receive corrections or identify outdated information. If you spot an error (a restaurant that no longer exists, a rating that's significantly off, a factual mistake), please use our contact page to flag it and we'll review and correct it.

We use AI tools (including Google Gemini and Anthropic Claude) to help research and draft resort profiles at scale. This allows us to cover 700+ resorts in depth — a task that would be impractical with manual research alone.

We are transparent about this because we think it matters. AI-generated content is only as good as the editorial standards applied to it. Our approach:

• AI drafts are reviewed against primary sources — resort websites, official menus, verified review data
• Marketing language and unsupported superlatives are removed or replaced with specific facts
• Rating numbers are never taken from AI output — they are manually verified from review platforms
• Content that cannot be verified is removed rather than published

We follow Google's guidance that AI-assisted content is acceptable when it is accurate, original, and provides genuine value to readers — and hold our content to that standard.