Correction Policy

Last updated: July 30, 2026

This page states, on its own, how Latesha Kellam handles a factual error. The desk’s full method
for reading and sourcing a review-platform’s rating system lives on the
How Ratings Work page — this note is the short, standalone version
of the same commitment, kept separate so a reader looking specifically for the corrections process
does not have to read the whole methodology first.

How to flag something

Write to [email protected]
with the article’s URL, the sentence in question, and — where possible — the public source that
supports the change you’re asking for. A specific pointer gets checked faster than a general
complaint that a piece “seems wrong.”

What happens next

Sidney Hunter checks the disputed sentence against the original source and against any newer
public documentation that may have superseded it. A rating platform’s own methodology page, terms,
or public regulator record outweighs a secondhand summary of the same material.

Two kinds of fix

A spelling, formatting, or dead-link fix that does not change what the article claims is corrected
without a separate note. A substantive correction — a wrong licence reference, a misquoted line, a
misstated detail of how a platform says it weighs a score — is corrected in the body text and marked
with a short dated note at the point of the change, saying what the sentence used to say and why it
was updated. The desk does not quietly rewrite a claim and let the old version disappear unremarked.

What a correction is not

A correction fixes a factual error. It is not a mechanism for a platform, operator, or advertiser
to soften a supported criticism it simply dislikes — see the commercial-independence section of
How Ratings Work. If a request turns out to rest on the requester’s
preference rather than a documentable inaccuracy, the desk says so in its reply and leaves the
article as published.