Why trust us
Don’t take our word for it. Test it.
A site like this should never ask for trust on faith. So instead of promises, here are tests you can run on any record we publish, and the registers that let you check our answers yourself.
- Claims sourced
- Every material claim
- Corrections
- Logged in public
- Replies
- Full, unedited, free
- Money from subjects
- Never accepted
01Six tests
Run them on us — and on anyone who publishes this kind of thing.
These are simply the questions anyone should ask of a site that makes claims about real people and companies. A publisher that fails several of them should not be relied on, this one included.
Can you check the source?
Every material claim links to a numbered entry in the record's source list, and each source carries a grade from A to E. If a point depends on one document only, the record tells you.
Can you see what changed?
Each record keeps its versions. Corrections carry a date, the earlier wording stays in the history, and material corrections are listed publicly. Nothing changes quietly.
Do the people named get a say?
Before publication, findings go to the people and companies concerned. Their replies are published free of charge, whenever they arrive — even long after publication.
Can an outcome be bought?
We accept no money from subjects, run no advertising and take no funding linked to coverage. Attempts to pay for an outcome are logged, and they never succeed.
Do we admit the gaps?
Closed registers, refused requests and identities we could not confirm are listed on the record as gaps. Treat any record that claims to be complete with suspicion.
Does pressure move us?
Proof of a mistake gets a record fixed quickly. A threat without proof gets nothing. Who is asking, and how powerful they are, makes no difference.
02Spot the difference
An evidence archive vs. a “scam list” for hire.
Some sites that look a bit like this one are really paid-removal businesses wearing a consumer-protection costume. The differences are structural, and quick to check.
- Removal
- Corrections are free. Removal is never for sale.
- Pay to be taken down, often through a middleman.
- Sourcing
- Each claim points to a graded source entry.
- Claims with no traceable origin.
- Reply
- Published in full and unedited, free, at any time.
- No way to answer, or an answer behind a paywall.
- Language
- Allegation, decision and fact kept apart.
- Everything written as loudly as possible.
- Corrections
- A public log; the old wording stays on file.
- Silent edits and no history.
- Funding
- Disclosed, and nothing from the people we cover.
- Hidden — and often paid by the very people named.
03Our limits
Where we can go wrong — said by us, before you discover it.
| What can go wrong | How it shows up | What we do about it |
|---|---|---|
| Faulty source records | Registries contain mistakes, filings get forged, case details get mistyped. | Cross-check wherever a second source exists; flag it where none does. |
| Selective leaks | A document set may be incomplete, or chosen 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 nobody tells us. | 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 adverse material lands on the wrong one. | Identity confirmed before research begins; a clear warning where it cannot be. |
| Uneven coverage | Places that publish good records get covered more than places that do not. | Said openly. No coverage never means no risk. |
Why we list our own weak spots
04Verify
Open the registers for yourself.
Caught us falling short of this page? Tell us.
Point out where the site fails its own tests. Any gap between the standards we state and the work we publish is handled as a correction.