A NOTE ON TRUST

Useful advice.
Visible limitations.

Our editorial standards and what our app-growth data can—and cannot—tell you.

Back My Side EditorialUpdated September 8, 2026

Who publishes this library

Back My Side publishes this library for people building and growing iOS apps. The organizational byline, Back My Side Editorial, identifies the publisher; it does not imply an independent analyst, a named external expert, or Apple endorsement.

The initial library was drafted with AI assistance and checked against linked platform documentation and the product’s implemented behavior. It is not based on a proprietary survey or undisclosed customer dataset. AI assistance does not replace checking current Apple requirements before submission.

What counts as evidence

Apple’s documentation is the primary source for platform requirements and supported workflows. Each article has a source list. Our recommendations explain a decision process; they are not statements that Apple has published its ranking formula.

We do not publish unsourced market-size figures, invented search volumes, made-up customer testimonials, or guaranteed ranking improvements.

What our public data measures

Back My Side uses public Apple search and lookup responses, listings, suggestions, and public reviews. A sampled position is the position in the returned search response for a query and storefront, with up to 200 results inspected. It can differ from personalized on-device results.

An app absent from a sample has not been assigned a known lower rank. A missing collection is not a zero or unchanged rank. Historical tracking reflects collected snapshots, not reconstructed observations from before tracking began.

Relative popularity, competition, and opportunity indicators are tool-specific heuristics, not Apple search counts or predicted downloads. The tool does not access a competitor’s private keyword field, your App Store Connect analytics, or your revenue. Use your own authorized analytics to evaluate acquisition and business outcomes.

Why our case studies are labeled examples

The current case studies use fictional apps and illustrative scenarios to show how to make a decision. They are not customer success stories or measurements of actual lifts. Sources support platform rules and methodology, not the example’s outcome.

Any future empirical study must identify its collection dates, sample, storefronts, source, exclusions, calculation method, and limitations. An observed before-and-after change is not automatically causal. Customer results require permission and auditable evidence before publication.

Dates, corrections, and disclosure

Publication dates represent publication of the article, and update dates should change only after a substantive content review or correction. They are not refreshed every time the website builds. Platform rules can change between reviews; the source documentation remains the authority.

Corrections should identify the specific claim, its source, and the scope of the change. Material corrections belong in the article’s update history rather than triggering a silent date change across unrelated articles. Personal information is handled under our privacy policy.

This is the product’s own educational website, not an independent ranking of ASO vendors. Product links lead to Back My Side. Mentions of other tools are context, not evidence that they endorse us.

Search and AI accessibility

Articles are public, readable in server-rendered HTML, and use descriptive headings, direct answers, visible FAQs, and matching structured data. The sitemap, RSS feed, AI-readable directory, and full-text edition derive from the same content catalog.

These formats make the material easier to discover and interpret. They do not guarantee search indexing, rich results, or citations from an AI assistant. FAQ markup is not a promise that a search engine will display FAQ rich results.