Before a claim earns a place in an article on this site, it has to survive a check against the original source. This page explains how that check works, what we refuse to do, and how we fix things when we get them wrong.
What we check against
Fact-checking here is not one person searching for a number that fits. Every draft is checked against a set of reference libraries I built and keep updating.
- A source-verified base. Claims traced back to the original: the documentation, the study, the data set. A blog quoting a blog is not a source, and it never counts as one here.
- A myth and weak-narrative library. The industry claims that keep circulating and do not survive scrutiny. If a draft leans on one, it gets pulled, even when the claim is popular.
- A compliance and risk library. Claims that are legally or commercially risky to make, so we do not make them, and so we can warn you when someone else does.
- A reality filter. Advice that sounds smart in a conference talk but dies on contact with a real store owner’s budget, team, and time.
- Our own data. Real numbers from client Search Console and Analytics accounts, used where they answer the question better than a borrowed statistic. When a number is ours, we say so.
How we verify a claim
- Isolate the claim. Separate the facts from the opinion and the analysis, because only the facts need sourcing. Judgment is allowed to be judgment, as long as it is labeled as such.
- Find the primary source. The original document or data set, not a secondhand write-up repeating it.
- Grade it. Every claim comes back supported, qualified, or contradicted. Supported stays as written. Qualified gets softened until it matches what the evidence actually says. Contradicted gets cut or corrected.
- Pressure-test interested sources. When the source benefits from the claim it is making, Google included, we treat it as a position rather than a fact, and we tell you where the honest disagreement sits.
- Cut what will not verify. Anything we cannot trace to a credible source is removed or clearly flagged. We would rather say less than say something we cannot stand behind.
What we refuse to do
- Invent a statistic or a quote. Not to fill a gap, not to sound authoritative, not ever. If we do not have a real number, you will not see one.
- Treat one vendor’s word as settled. A single interested source is a claim, not proof.
- Keep a claim we cannot source. If it will not trace back, it comes out, however much we liked the line.
- Round a number up to make it land harder. A real, smaller number beats an inflated one every time, because credibility is the only thing here that compounds.
Corrections
We are careful, but nobody publishing at a real pace is perfect. When we find an error, or a reader points one out, we fix the article and note that it was updated, with the date.
If a correction changes the takeaway, we say what changed rather than quietly swapping a word. Trust is worth more to me than looking flawless.
Found something that does not hold up? Email us at editorial@wpconsults.com and I will look into it personally.
A note on tools
Software, including AI, helps gather and cross-check sources quickly, which is the slow part of this work. The verdict on whether a claim survives is human, and it is mine.
Who is accountable
Abdullah Nouman, founder of WpConsults. I make the final call on every claim published here. If something on this site is wrong, that is on me, not on a tool.
Read my full profile, see how our content gets made, oder book a free consultation if you want to work together.