Why does this site not publish salary figures?

Because the public figures for this title disagree by a factor of four, and the disagreement is real rather than noise: the aggregators are averaging postings that share a heading and nothing else. Publishing a single number would rank well and mislead everybody who read it. We would rather have no salary page than one we cannot defend.

What would it take for you to publish them?

A posting-level dataset we collect and maintain ourselves, with the collection method published alongside the numbers: which sources, how titles were matched, how equity was treated, and what the sample size is per market. Until that exists, the honest answer to what this job pays is a range we have not earned the right to state.

How often is the site reviewed?

Every page carries the date it was last reviewed, at the top and in the footer, and the review cycle is twelve months or sooner if something material changes. A page whose date is old is telling you something true rather than hiding it, which we prefer to a date that refreshes automatically at each build.

What happens when you get something wrong?

We change it and say what changed. Corrections are not silent edits here: a page that has been materially corrected carries a note saying what was wrong and when it was fixed. This costs a little credibility each time and buys the only kind that lasts.

Editorial Method: How This Site Decides What to Publish

What this site is about, and the naming problem underneath it

This site covers an emerging job title and the practice of deploying software into organisations. Emerging is the operative word: the same work is advertised as forward deployed engineer, deployment engineer, field engineer, applied engineer, implementation engineer and solutions architect depending on the employer, and there is no standards body that will settle it.

That has a direct consequence for anything quantitative. Any dataset built by matching a job title is measuring the popularity of a phrase as much as the prevalence of a job, and any comparison between two companies using different titles is comparing their vocabulary. We say so wherever it affects a claim rather than quietly averaging across it.

How sources are chosen and recorded

A source is opened and read before it is cited. Every one is listed on the sources page, which is generated from the same file the articles cite, so the list cannot drift from what the pages actually use.

Each entry carries the date it was last read rather than its publication date, because the reading date is what tells you when the supported claim was last checked. Where a source has a commercial interest in what it describes, we say so on the sources page rather than presenting it as neutral.

Why there are no salary figures

This is the largest deliberate omission on the site and the one most likely to send a visitor elsewhere, so it deserves a full explanation rather than a note.

The widely cited public figures for this title disagree with each other by roughly a factor of four. That spread is not measurement noise. It is what happens when aggregators average every posting that carries a heading, and this heading covers a deployment role at a frontier lab and a field support role at a mid-market vendor equally. Averaging them produces a number that describes neither.

We could publish one anyway. It would rank, it would attract more traffic than everything else on this site combined, and every reader who used it to negotiate would be using a figure we knew to be unreliable. So the pages that would naturally carry salary figures either do not exist yet or say explicitly that they do not have them.

What would change this: a dataset of individual postings that we collect and maintain ourselves, published with its method attached. Which sources it draws from, how titles are matched to roles, how equity and bonus are handled, what the sample size is in each market, and how often it is refreshed. When that exists, the figures will appear with that method next to them. Until it does, the absence is the honest answer.

The one constant in the calculator

The automation ROI calculator contains exactly one number we chose rather than you: a working year of 47 weeks, being 52 less five for leave and public holidays. Using 52 would inflate every result by about a tenth.

It is stated on the calculator page rather than buried in the code, so that you can disagree with it knowingly. Everything else in that tool is arithmetic on numbers you supplied, and each step is shown on the page. There is no benchmark, no industry data and no hidden assumption, which is why the result is an estimate of your own assumptions rather than a forecast.

What we will not do

We will not invent a statistic, a client, a testimonial, a certification or a job posting. We will not present an estimate as a projection. We will not quote an efficiency percentage for a company we have not looked at, because the variance between organisations on the same process is larger than the effect being claimed.

We will not publish a page that exists only to rank. The salary decision above is the clearest case, and it is the test of whether the rest of this page means anything.

Reviews and corrections

Every indexable page shows the date it was last reviewed, at the top and again in the footer. The cycle is twelve months, or sooner when something material changes. The date reflects an actual review rather than the last build, which means an old date on a page is telling you the truth rather than hiding.

When we get something wrong, the page is corrected and carries a note saying what was wrong and when it was fixed. Silent editing is easier and leaves a reader no way to tell whether what they read last month is what is there now.

Methodology