Accuracy matters more than protecting appearances
ReaThis aims to publish technology reviews, comparisons, rankings, guides, and analysis that are accurate, useful, and supported by evidence.
We work carefully, but mistakes can still happen. Technology also changes quickly. Prices increase, features disappear, companies change ownership, policies are rewritten, security incidents emerge, and products evolve after an article is published.
When we identify a meaningful error or outdated conclusion, we review the evidence and correct the content.
We do not leave inaccurate information online simply because changing it may be inconvenient, embarrassing, or unfavorable to a company we previously recommended.
This policy explains how ReaThis handles corrections, updates, clarification requests, disagreements, and reader feedback.
Our commitment to accuracy
Accuracy is a core part of ReaThis’s editorial standards.
Before publishing, we aim to verify important claims using the strongest available evidence, including:
- First-hand testing where possible
- Official product documentation
- Pricing pages
- Privacy and security policies
- Technical specifications
- Company statements
- Regulatory records
- Research papers
- Credible independent reporting
- Direct responses from relevant organizations
Our full research and testing process is explained on the How We Evaluate Technology page.
Despite these checks, no publication is immune to errors. When credible evidence shows that our content is inaccurate, incomplete, misleading, or materially outdated, we review it and make the appropriate change.
What qualifies for a correction?
A correction may be required when an article contains a factual error that could affect the reader’s understanding or decision.
Examples include:
- An incorrect product price
- An inaccurate feature description
- A wrong launch date or company detail
- A misleading comparison
- An incorrect security or privacy claim
- A factual error in a product specification
- An outdated statement presented as current
- A quotation attributed incorrectly
- A ranking affected by incorrect information
- A conclusion based on evidence later shown to be false
- A material omission that changes the meaning of the article
Not every edit requires a formal correction notice.
Small spelling, grammar, punctuation, formatting, or readability changes may be made without adding a visible notice when they do not affect the article’s meaning.
Corrections, clarifications, and updates
ReaThis distinguishes between corrections, clarifications, and routine updates.
Corrections
A correction is made when published information is factually wrong.
Examples include an incorrect price, an inaccurate feature claim, a wrong statistic, or a statement contradicted by reliable evidence.
When the error materially affects the article, we aim to add a visible correction note explaining what was changed.
Clarifications
A clarification may be added when the original wording was technically accurate but unclear, incomplete, or open to a misleading interpretation.
Clarifications are intended to improve understanding, not quietly change a conclusion without explanation.
Updates
An update is made when information was accurate at the time of publication but has since changed.
Examples include:
- New pricing
- Added or removed features
- A redesigned product
- Changes to free or paid plans
- Updated privacy terms
- A security incident
- A company acquisition
- Changes to customer support
- New competitors
- A product shutdown or rebrand
Meaningful updates may be reflected through a new “last updated” date and, where appropriate, an explanatory note.
How we display corrections
The way a correction is displayed depends on its significance.
For minor factual changes that do not affect the article’s main conclusion, we may correct the text directly.
For meaningful errors, we aim to add a visible note that explains:
- What information was incorrect
- What has been changed
- When the correction was made
- Whether the correction affected the verdict, ranking, score, or recommendation
Where an error materially changes the article’s conclusion, the correction should be clear enough that returning readers can understand what changed.
We do not aim to hide substantial corrections through silent edits.
When a verdict or ranking changes
Reviews and recommendations are not permanent.
A product that once performed well may become less reliable, more expensive, less secure, or less suitable for its intended users. A weaker competitor may improve. New evidence may also reveal limitations that were not known during the original evaluation.
ReaThis may revise a rating, ranking, recommendation, or verdict when:
- Pricing changes significantly
- Important features are removed
- Performance improves or declines
- A security or privacy concern emerges
- Customer support changes
- The product changes ownership
- A better alternative becomes available
- New testing produces a different result
- Credible evidence challenges the original conclusion
- The original review is no longer useful to readers
We do not preserve an outdated recommendation simply to remain consistent with a previous opinion.
Accuracy matters more than defending an old verdict.
How to report an error
Readers, researchers, developers, companies, and subject-matter experts are encouraged to report possible errors.
Email [email protected] or use the ReaThis Contact page.
Please include:
- The URL of the relevant article
- The statement you believe is incorrect
- A clear explanation of the issue
- Supporting evidence or source links
- The correct information, where known
- Your name and relationship to the subject, if relevant
Providing reliable evidence helps us review the issue properly.
Anonymous reports may still be considered, but claims supported by verifiable sources are easier to assess.
How correction requests are reviewed
Every correction request is evaluated according to the evidence.
Our review may include:
- Rechecking the original source
- Repeating relevant product tests
- Reviewing official documentation
- Contacting the company or individual involved
- Consulting additional primary sources
- Comparing publication dates and update history
- Seeking input from a relevant subject-matter expert
The person or company requesting a correction does not control the outcome.
A correction is made when the evidence supports it, not because the request comes from a large company, advertiser, public-relations representative, partner, or influential individual.
These protections form part of our Editorial Policy and Independence.
Company requests and disputed reviews
Companies covered by ReaThis are welcome to identify factual errors, provide updated documentation, or challenge a claim with supporting evidence.
However, disagreement with a review is not automatically evidence that the review is inaccurate.
We will not change an article merely because a company:
- Dislikes the verdict
- Objects to criticism
- Wants a higher rating
- Prefers different wording
- Believes a competitor received better coverage
- Threatens to withdraw access
- Offers payment or a commercial relationship
- Requests removal without providing evidence
We distinguish between factual errors and differences of opinion.
If a statement is supported by evidence and presented fairly, company dissatisfaction alone is not grounds for removing it.
Requests to remove criticism
ReaThis does not remove legitimate criticism simply because it is commercially inconvenient.
Criticism may be revised or removed when:
- The underlying fact is proven wrong
- The evidence was unreliable
- The statement is misleading without additional context
- The issue has been resolved and the article requires an update
- The conclusion no longer reflects the current product
- The wording creates an inaccurate impression
When criticism remains supported by evidence and relevant to readers, it will remain part of the article.
Sources and supporting evidence
Correction requests should rely on credible evidence.
Useful sources may include:
- Official documentation
- Current pricing pages
- Product release notes
- Technical specifications
- Regulatory documents
- Security disclosures
- Research papers
- Direct product access
- Public company statements
- Archived versions of relevant pages
- Reputable independent reporting
Marketing claims, unsupported assurances, private opinions, or screenshots without context may not be sufficient on their own.
We assess the quality, relevance, date, and independence of the evidence before making a decision.
Corrections involving anonymous sources
In limited cases, ReaThis may rely on confidential or anonymous sources.
When a correction request relates to information provided by such a source, we may not be able to reveal the source’s identity or confidential material.
However, the claim will still be reviewed.
We may reassess the source’s credibility, seek additional confirmation, or revise the article if the available evidence no longer supports the published statement.
Protecting a legitimate source does not remove our responsibility to verify the information.
Legal and privacy-related requests
Requests involving privacy, personal data, legal rights, or confidential information are reviewed separately from ordinary editorial disagreements.
ReaThis will consider legitimate concerns involving:
- Personal information published unnecessarily
- Incorrect identification
- Private contact information
- Copyrighted material
- Confidential documents
- Court orders
- Applicable data-protection rights
- Serious safety risks
Submitting a legal complaint does not automatically require removal, but legitimate legal and privacy concerns will be reviewed carefully.
For information about how ReaThis handles website visitor information, read our Privacy Policy.
Article dates and update notices
Where possible, ReaThis articles display a publication date and a last-updated date.
A last-updated date may indicate that:
- A factual error was corrected
- Pricing or features were reviewed
- New evidence was added
- The structure was improved
- A product was retested
- A ranking was revised
- The article was substantially refreshed
A changed date does not always mean the entire article was rewritten.
Where an update materially affects the conclusion, we aim to explain the change within the article.
Archived and discontinued products
Some products are discontinued, acquired, rebranded, or replaced.
In these cases, ReaThis may:
- Update the article with the current product status
- Add an archive notice
- Remove the product from an active ranking
- Redirect readers to a newer article
- Preserve the page for historical reference
- Withdraw a recommendation that is no longer useful
We may keep older content available when it still has historical or research value, but it should not be presented as current advice.
Retractions
A retraction is more serious than a correction.
ReaThis may retract an article when its central claims are no longer trustworthy or when correction alone would not repair the problem.
Possible reasons include:
- Fabricated evidence
- Plagiarism
- A fundamentally unreliable source
- Serious factual failures throughout the article
- Manipulated testing
- Undisclosed conflicts that invalidate the work
- Legal or ethical problems that cannot be resolved through editing
When an article is retracted, we aim to explain why rather than simply removing it without context, unless legal, privacy, or safety considerations prevent that.
Editorial independence and corrections
Correction decisions remain separate from commercial relationships.
No company can pay ReaThis to:
- Remove legitimate criticism
- Change a rating
- Improve a ranking
- Rewrite an unfavorable conclusion
- Suppress an article
- Add promotional language
- Avoid a necessary correction
Similarly, no advertiser, affiliate partner, vendor, or potential business relationship may prevent us from correcting inaccurate information.
You can read more about these protections in our Editorial Policy and Independence.
Our responsibility to readers
ReaThis does not promise that every article will remain correct forever.
We do promise to take accuracy seriously, review credible challenges, disclose meaningful corrections, and update conclusions when the evidence changes.
Readers should be able to trust that our published work is not protected from correction by ego, pressure, money, or reputation.
When we are wrong, we should say so.
When the facts change, our coverage should change with them.
That is part of publishing independent technology journalism.
Contact ReaThis
To report an error, request a correction, or share evidence relating to a published article, email [email protected].
For general questions, story ideas, or other enquiries, visit the ReaThis Contact page.
