Why trust us
Don’t. Check us instead.
Trust that is simply asked for is worth very little on a site like this. So this page is not a list of promises. It is a set of tests you can run on any record here, and the registers we publish so the answers can be checked rather than claimed.
- Claims sourced
- Every material claim
- Corrections
- Public log
- Replies
- Full, unedited, free
- Money from subjects
- None accepted
§01Six tests
Run these on us — and on anyone else who publishes this kind of thing.
There is nothing special about these questions. They are what anyone should ask of a site that makes claims about real people. A publisher that fails several of them should not be relied on — including this one.
Can you see the source?
Every material claim points to a numbered entry in the record's source list, graded A to E. If a claim rests on a single document, the record says so up front.
Can you see what changed?
Records are versioned. Corrections are dated, the old wording stays visible in the history, and material corrections appear in a public log. Nothing is edited in silence.
Can the people named answer back?
Findings go to the people and companies concerned before publication. Their replies are published, free of charge, at any time — even years later.
Can anyone buy an outcome?
We take no money from subjects, carry no advertising, and accept no funding tied to coverage. Attempts to buy an editorial outcome are logged — and the outcome is never delivered.
Do we admit what we don't know?
Closed registers, refused records and unconfirmed identities are listed on the record as gaps. A record that claims to be complete is one you should be suspicious of.
Does pressure work?
Evidence of an error changes a record quickly. A threat without evidence changes nothing. How wealthy or well-connected the person asking is makes no difference.
§02Spot the difference
A sourced register vs. a “scam list” for hire.
Plenty of sites look a little like this one. Some are paid-removal operations dressed up as consumer protection. The differences are structural, and easy to check.
A sourced register
- Removal
- Corrections are free. No paid removal at any price.
- Sourcing
- Every claim links to a graded source entry.
- Reply
- Published in full, unedited, free, at any time.
- Language
- Allegation, finding and fact kept apart.
- Corrections
- Public log; the old wording is kept on file.
- Funding
- Disclosed. Nothing from the people we cover.
A reputation operation
- Removal
- Removal for a fee, often through a middleman.
- Sourcing
- Claims with no traceable origin.
- Reply
- No way to reply, or a reply behind a paywall.
- Language
- Everything written as loudly as possible.
- Corrections
- Silent edits, no history.
- Funding
- Hidden — and often paid for by the people named.
§03Our limits
Where we can get it wrong — said by us, before you find out.
| What can go wrong | How it shows up | What we do about it |
|---|---|---|
| Bad source records | Registries contain errors, filings get falsified, dockets get mistyped. | Cross-check where a second source exists; flag it where none does. |
| Selective leaks | A document set can be incomplete, or picked to create an impression. | Graded as single-source until corroborated, with the limit stated on the record. |
| Out of date | A case is resolved and we don’t hear about it. | Review dates for every kind of record, and a visible flag when one is missed. |
| Same name, wrong person | Two people share a name and the adverse material lands on the wrong one. | Identity confirmed before research starts; a clear warning where it can’t be. |
| Uneven coverage | We cover places that publish records well more than places that don’t. | Said openly. No coverage never means no risk. |
A publisher that presents itself as never wrong is telling you something about its standards. We would rather name the ways we can fail and show you what we do about each one.
§04Verify
Open the registers yourself.
Caught us failing our own test? That’s news.
Tell us where the site falls short of what this page says. Any gap between our stated standards and our published work is handled as a correction.