Why we publish the ones we got wrong
Every article below began as a planned piece with a claim already in the title. Before writing, we tried to source the claim. Three of them failed, and the article became the correction rather than the original plan.
That is worth publishing rather than quietly binning, for two reasons. Bad claims in this industry propagate because nobody checks them, and an agency that shows its working is easier to verify than one that shows its conclusions.
Cadence, honestly stated
This page updates when something changes or when a claim needs checking, rather than on a schedule. We would rather publish six checks a year that mattered than one a month that did not.
Where a platform changed something, the entry carries the date it changed. Where a claim failed verification, the entry says what we looked for and where we looked.
Fair questions about this page
Why publish claims you got wrong?
Because they were about to be published as right. Showing the check is more useful than showing only the conclusions, and unchecked claims in this industry spread precisely because nobody publishes the correction.
How often does this update?
When something changes or a claim needs checking, rather than on a fixed schedule. A cadence promise we could not keep would be the wrong thing to make on a page about verification.
Do you test things on client sites?
No. Nothing here is an experiment run on a client's site. These are verification passes against primary sources, and where we run measurements they follow the published protocol.
Start with a measurement, not a claim
A free Visibility Check runs twelve real buying questions across Google and AI. You keep the findings.
Get my free Visibility Check