Fact-Checking and Corrections
How factual claims are checked before publication, how stale guidance is caught afterwards, and how to ask us to correct something.
Fact-checking begins with claim scope. A statement about current policy, regulatory requirements, software behaviour, availability, pricing, or a named organisation should be checked against a source current enough for the publication date.
Before publication
Editors verify names, dates, regulatory references, source URLs, attribution, and the relationship between a conclusion and its evidence.
The last of those is the one that matters most and is easiest to get wrong. A source that establishes a general practice does not establish a specific figure. A source describing one state’s rules does not describe another’s. Where our text goes beyond what a source says, the text has to signal that it is our inference rather than the source’s claim.
Automated checks catch missing metadata, broken links, thin pages and structural problems. They do not check whether a claim is true, and no build check ever will.
After publication
Guidance goes stale in specific ways in this subject. Regulatory requirements change, sales-tax thresholds move, carrier rules and classification standards are revised, and industry practice shifts. Pages that depend on any of those are reviewed on a schedule rather than only when someone complains.
Buying and logistics guidance is reviewed roughly every six months. Company profiles are reviewed quarterly. A changed review date should represent a substantive review, not an automated attempt to appear fresh, and we do not touch dates to signal activity.
What we correct
Anything factually wrong, including a wrong figure, a misdescribed requirement, an out-of-date rule, a misattributed source, or a claim a cited source does not support.
We also correct framing that misleads even where each sentence is defensible — a caveat buried where a reader will not see it, or a general practice presented as though it were universal.
Requesting a correction
Send the page URL, the disputed sentence, and a supporting source to the editorial address in the site footer. We investigate the narrow claim first and only then consider whether adjacent conclusions are affected.
We would rather hear about a small error than not hear about it. A research site that is never corrected is not accurate; it is unread.
Frequently asked questions
How do I request a correction?
Send the page URL, the specific sentence you believe is wrong, and a source that supports the correction, to the editorial address in the site footer. A narrow report is acted on faster than a general objection.
Will you say that a page was corrected?
Where the change is material — a conclusion, a requirement, a figure — yes. Where it is a typo or a clarification that does not change the meaning, we fix it and update the review date without a note.
What if a source you cite does not support the claim?
That is a correction and it is treated as one. Attribution errors are among the more serious mistakes a research site can make, because they transfer unearned authority to a claim.