Accuracy matters more than protecting appearances.
ReaThis aims to publish technology reviews, comparisons, rankings, guides, investigations, and analysis that are accurate, useful, clearly sourced, and supported by the strongest evidence reasonably available.
Even careful reporting can contain mistakes. Technology also changes quickly. Prices rise, features disappear, companies change ownership, policies are rewritten, security incidents emerge, software is updated, products are discontinued, and new evidence can challenge an earlier conclusion.
When credible evidence shows that a ReaThis article contains a meaningful error, misleading statement, material omission, or outdated conclusion, we review the evidence and make the appropriate correction or update.
We do not knowingly leave inaccurate information online simply because changing it may be inconvenient, embarrassing, or inconsistent with a conclusion we previously published.
This policy explains how ReaThis handles corrections, clarifications, updates, retractions, disputed reviews, company responses, and reader feedback.
Our Commitment to Accuracy
Accuracy is a core part of the ReaThis editorial process.
Before publishing, we aim to verify material claims using sources appropriate to the subject. Depending on the article, those sources may include:
- First-hand testing when genuinely performed
- Official product documentation
- Technical specifications
- Current pricing information
- Privacy and security documentation
- Government and regulatory materials
- Standards organizations
- Research papers
- Public company statements
- Credible independent reporting
- Archived versions of relevant pages
- Direct responses from companies or organizations
- Other primary or authoritative evidence
The strength of a conclusion should reflect the strength of the evidence supporting it.
A vendor statement may establish what a company claims or officially supports, but it does not automatically provide independent proof of performance, reliability, customer experience, or superiority over competitors.
Our broader research and evaluation standards are explained on the How We Evaluate Technology page.
No publication can guarantee that every article will remain perfectly accurate forever. Our responsibility is to respond appropriately when credible evidence shows that something needs to change.
What Qualifies for a Correction?
A correction is generally appropriate when published information is factually wrong and the error could affect a reader’s understanding of the subject.
Examples may include:
- An incorrect price
- An inaccurate feature description
- A wrong launch date
- An incorrect company detail
- A misleading comparison
- An inaccurate security or privacy claim
- A wrong product specification
- An outdated statement presented as current
- A quotation attributed incorrectly
- A ranking based on incorrect information
- A conclusion relying on evidence later shown to be unreliable
- A material omission that changes the meaning of the article
- A source that was represented inaccurately
- A claim stated with greater certainty than the evidence supports
Not every edit requires a formal correction notice.
Minor spelling, grammar, punctuation, formatting, broken-link, or readability fixes may be made without a visible correction notice when they do not materially alter the meaning of the article.
Types of Editorial Changes
ReaThis distinguishes between corrections, clarifications, updates, and retractions because they address different problems.
Corrections
A correction addresses information that was factually wrong when it was published.
Examples include an incorrect price, inaccurate specification, wrong statistic, misidentified company detail, or statement contradicted by stronger evidence.
When the error is material, we aim to identify what was wrong, what was changed, and whether the correction affected the article’s ranking, score, recommendation, or conclusion.
Clarifications
A clarification may be appropriate when the original statement was not strictly false but was incomplete, ambiguous, insufficiently qualified, or reasonably capable of creating a misleading impression.
A clarification should improve the reader’s understanding rather than quietly change the meaning of the article without explanation.
Where a clarification materially changes how readers are likely to interpret a finding, we may add a visible note.
Updates
An update addresses information that was accurate when published but subsequently changed.
Examples may include:
- New pricing
- Added or removed features
- Product redesigns
- Changes to free or paid plans
- New security information
- Updated privacy terms
- Company acquisitions
- Ownership changes
- Changes to support
- New competitors
- Product shutdowns
- Rebranding
- Regulatory developments
- New evidence affecting an existing recommendation
A meaningful update may result in a new last-reviewed or last-updated date.
Minor cosmetic editing alone should not be treated as a substantive update.
Retractions
A retraction is substantially more serious than a normal correction.
ReaThis may retract an article when the central reporting, evidence, methodology, or conclusions are no longer sufficiently trustworthy and ordinary corrections cannot reasonably repair the work.
Possible reasons may include:
- Fabricated evidence
- Plagiarism
- Manipulated or invalid testing
- Fundamentally unreliable sourcing
- Serious factual failures throughout the article
- Undisclosed conflicts that materially invalidate the work
- Major ethical failures
- Legal or evidentiary problems that cannot reasonably be resolved through editing
Where an article is retracted, we generally aim to explain what happened and why the article can no longer be relied upon.
Legal, privacy, security, or safety considerations may sometimes limit the amount of detail we can publish.
How We Display Corrections
The visibility of a correction should reflect the significance of the error.
Minor factual mistakes that do not affect the meaning or conclusion of an article may be corrected directly.
When an error is material, ReaThis aims to provide a visible correction or editor’s note explaining:
- What information was incorrect
- What information replaced it
- When the correction was made
- Why the change was necessary
- Whether the correction affected a score, verdict, ranking, recommendation, or other material conclusion
When appropriate, a correction note may appear near the beginning or end of the article or close to the affected section.
A substantial correction should not be hidden through a silent edit when doing so would leave returning readers unaware that an important conclusion changed.
When a Ranking, Rating, or Recommendation Changes
Reviews, rankings, scores, and recommendations are not permanent.
Technology products and companies change. So does the evidence available to evaluate them.
ReaThis may reconsider an existing ranking, verdict, recommendation, or rating when:
- Pricing changes materially
- Important features are removed
- Important capabilities are added
- Performance materially changes
- Reliability improves or declines
- New security or privacy concerns emerge
- Customer-support arrangements change
- Ownership changes
- Product strategy changes
- A stronger alternative becomes available
- New testing or documentation changes the evidence
- Previously unavailable information becomes verifiable
- Credible evidence challenges the original conclusion
- The original recommendation no longer serves readers well
A provider or product should not remain highly ranked merely because an earlier version of the article placed it there.
Likewise, a company should not automatically lose its position because another company submits promotional claims about itself.
Changes should follow the evidence.
When a correction materially changes a ranking or recommendation, we aim to make that change visible to readers rather than quietly replacing the earlier conclusion.
How to Report an Error
Readers, researchers, developers, companies, professionals, and subject-matter experts are encouraged to report potential errors.
For corrections and evidence submissions, contact:
You may also use the ReaThis Contact page.
A useful correction request should include:
- The URL of the relevant article
- The exact statement or section you believe is incorrect
- A clear explanation of the problem
- Supporting evidence or source links
- The correct information, when known
- Your name or organization, when appropriate
- Your relationship to the subject, when relevant
Providing direct, verifiable evidence helps us review an issue more effectively.
Anonymous submissions may still be considered. However, claims supported by verifiable documentation are generally easier to investigate than unsupported assertions.
How Correction Requests Are Reviewed
Correction requests are evaluated according to the evidence, not the identity or commercial importance of the person making the request.
Depending on the issue, our review may involve:
- Rechecking the original source
- Reviewing current official documentation
- Comparing archived versions of relevant pages
- Repeating applicable product testing
- Reviewing technical specifications
- Checking release notes
- Consulting additional primary sources
- Reviewing regulatory or security materials
- Contacting the company or individual involved
- Seeking additional context from a relevant subject-matter expert
- Reviewing the article’s publication and revision history
The person or company submitting a correction request does not control the outcome.
A correction is made when the evidence supports one.
It is not made simply because the requester is a large company, advertiser, vendor, public-relations representative, business partner, potential partner, or influential individual.
Our conflict-of-interest and editorial-independence standards are explained in the Editorial Policy and Independence.
Company Responses and Disputed Reviews
Companies discussed by ReaThis are welcome to identify factual errors, submit updated documentation, provide technical clarification, or challenge a statement with supporting evidence.
A company may also provide evidence that:
- A feature has changed
- A price has changed
- Documentation has been updated
- A product limitation has been resolved
- A security statement is outdated
- A technical description is incomplete
- A comparison is based on obsolete information
We will review credible evidence.
However, disagreement with an article does not automatically establish an error.
ReaThis will not change an article solely because a company:
- Dislikes a verdict
- Objects to legitimate criticism
- Wants a higher rating
- Requests a better ranking
- Prefers more favorable wording
- Believes a competitor received better coverage
- Threatens to withdraw product access
- Offers payment or another commercial benefit
- Requests removal without supporting evidence
We distinguish between factual accuracy and differences in editorial judgment.
When a statement is supported by credible evidence and presented fairly, dissatisfaction alone is not grounds for removing it.
Requests to Remove Criticism
ReaThis does not remove legitimate criticism simply because it creates commercial inconvenience.
Critical findings may be corrected, revised, contextualized, or removed when:
- The underlying fact is shown to be wrong
- The evidence supporting the statement was unreliable
- Important context changes the meaning
- The issue has been resolved and the article requires updating
- The criticism no longer reflects the current product or service
- The wording creates an inaccurate or disproportionate impression
- Stronger evidence materially changes the original conclusion
When criticism remains supported by credible evidence and remains relevant to readers, commercial pressure alone is not a reason to remove it.
Sources and Supporting Evidence
Not every source carries the same evidentiary weight.
Depending on the issue, useful evidence may include:
- Official documentation
- Current pricing pages
- Release notes
- Technical specifications
- Regulatory records
- Security disclosures
- Research papers
- Public filings
- Direct product access
- Public company statements
- Archived web pages
- Credible independent reporting
- Other primary-source material
We consider factors such as:
- Who produced the evidence
- Whether it can be independently verified
- Whether it directly supports the disputed claim
- Whether it is current
- Whether important context is missing
- Whether the source has a relevant commercial or professional interest
Marketing statements, unsupported assurances, isolated screenshots without context, anonymous claims, or personal opinions may not be sufficient on their own to establish that a published statement is wrong.
Anonymous and Confidential Sources
In limited circumstances, ReaThis may receive information from confidential or anonymous sources.
When a correction request relates to information obtained from such a source, we may not be able to reveal the person’s identity, private communications, or confidential material.
Confidentiality does not remove our responsibility to evaluate the underlying claim.
We may:
- Reassess the source’s credibility
- Review supporting documentation
- Seek independent confirmation
- Compare the information with other evidence
- Remove or qualify the claim if the available evidence no longer supports it
Protecting a legitimate source and maintaining factual accuracy are separate responsibilities.
For highly sensitive submissions, readers should review the guidance on our Contact page before sending confidential information.
Legal, Privacy, and Safety Requests
Some requests involve issues beyond ordinary editorial disagreement.
ReaThis will separately consider legitimate concerns involving matters such as:
- Unnecessarily published personal information
- Incorrect identification
- Private contact information
- Copyrighted material
- Confidential documents
- Applicable privacy rights
- Court orders
- Serious safety concerns
- Other valid legal obligations
Submitting a legal complaint does not automatically establish that published material must be removed.
However, credible legal, privacy, and safety concerns will be reviewed carefully and separately from ordinary requests to change unfavorable editorial coverage.
Information about website visitor data is available in the ReaThis Privacy Policy.
Publication Dates and Update Dates
Where appropriate, ReaThis articles may display both their original publication date and a last-updated or last-reviewed date.
A new update date may reflect a meaningful change such as:
- Correcting a material factual error
- Reviewing current pricing
- Verifying changed product features
- Adding important new evidence
- Retesting a product
- Revising a comparison
- Updating security or privacy information
- Changing a ranking
- Substantially expanding or revising the article
A new date should not imply that an article has been substantially refreshed when only minor formatting, spelling, punctuation, or cosmetic edits were made.
Changing an article’s date is not a substitute for explaining a material correction.
When an update significantly changes the conclusion, readers should be given enough information to understand what changed.
Archived, Discontinued, and Rebranded Products
Technology coverage sometimes remains useful after the product itself changes or disappears.
A product may be discontinued, acquired, renamed, merged, replaced, or materially redesigned.
Depending on the circumstances, ReaThis may:
- Update the existing article with the product’s current status
- Add an archive notice
- Remove the product from an active ranking
- Update links to its successor
- Redirect readers to a newer resource
- Preserve the article for historical or research value
- Withdraw an outdated recommendation
Archived content should not be presented as current buying advice when the underlying product or market has materially changed.
Editorial Independence and Corrections
Correction decisions remain separate from commercial relationships.
No company, advertiser, vendor, affiliate partner, sponsor, or potential commercial partner can purchase the right to:
- Remove legitimate criticism
- Prevent a necessary correction
- Change a rating without evidence
- Improve a ranking without evidence
- Rewrite an unfavorable conclusion
- Suppress a legitimate article
- Add promotional language
- Control a correction notice
- Approve final editorial conclusions
Likewise, commercial relationships should not prevent ReaThis from correcting inaccurate information.
When a potential conflict of interest affects a correction or review, ReaThis may assign the matter to another editor or reviewer or take other steps appropriate to the circumstances.
Read more in our Editorial Policy and Independence.
Our Responsibility to Readers
ReaThis cannot promise that every technology article will remain correct forever.
Products, companies, policies, prices, evidence, regulations, and technology itself continue to change after publication.
What we can commit to is a process.
We aim to review credible challenges, correct material errors, distinguish corrections from ordinary updates, disclose significant changes, reconsider conclusions when evidence changes, and avoid allowing commercial pressure to determine whether inaccurate information remains online.
Readers should be able to see that ReaThis values accuracy more than protecting an old conclusion.
When we are wrong, we should correct the record.
When the facts change, our coverage should change with them.
When the available evidence remains uncertain, our language should reflect that uncertainty.
That is part of accountable technology journalism.
Contact ReaThis About a Correction
To report an error, request a correction, dispute a factual statement, or provide supporting evidence relating to a published ReaThis article:
Email: [email protected]
Contact page: https://www.reathis.com/contact-us/
When possible, include the article URL, the specific statement being challenged, and the evidence supporting your request.
For additional information about our standards, review:
