— Why trust us
Don’t take our word for it. Check it.
A site like this should never ask to be trusted on faith. Instead of promises, here are tests you can apply to any entry we publish, and the registers that let you check our answers for yourself.
- Claims sourced
- Every material claim
- Corrections
- Logged in public
- Replies
- Full, unedited, free
- Money from subjects
- Never accepted
No. 01Six tests
Apply them to us, and to anyone who publishes this kind of material.
These are 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.
No. 02Spot the difference
An evidence file against a “scam list” run for profit.
Some sites that look a little like this one are paid-removal businesses dressed up as consumer protection. The differences are structural, and quick to check.
| Test | An evidence file | A reputation business |
|---|---|---|
| Removal | Corrections cost nothing. Removal is never for sale. | Pay to be taken down, often through an intermediary. |
| Sourcing | Every claim leads to a graded source. | Claims with no traceable origin. |
| Reply | Published in full, unedited and free, at any time. | No way to respond, or a response behind a fee. |
| Language | Allegation, decision and fact kept separate. | Everything written as loudly as possible. |
| Corrections | A public log, with the old wording kept on file. | Silent edits and no history. |
| Funding | Disclosed, and nothing taken from the people we cover. | Hidden, and often paid by the people named. |
No. 03Our limits
Where we can go wrong, stated by us before you find out.
| What can go wrong | How it shows up | What we do about it |
|---|---|---|
| Faulty source records | Registers contain mistakes, filings can be false, and case details are sometimes mistyped. | We cross-check wherever a second source exists, and flag the entry where none does. |
| Selective leaks | A set of documents may be incomplete, or chosen to create an impression. | Graded as single-source until corroborated, with the limitation stated in the entry. |
| Out of date | A case is resolved and nobody tells us. | Review dates for every kind of entry, and a visible flag when one is missed. |
| Same name, wrong person | Two people share a name and adverse material is attached to the wrong one. | Identity is confirmed before research begins, with a clear warning where it cannot be. |
| Uneven coverage | Places with good public records are covered more than places without them. | We say so openly. No coverage never means no risk. |
Why we list our own weak spots
No. 04Verify
Open the registers yourself.
Found us falling short of this page? Tell us.
Show us where the site fails its own tests. Any gap between the standards we set out and the work we publish is handled as a correction.