Corrections Policy

Last updated: May 24, 2026

BitsFromBytes is built to be trusted. When we publish something that turns out to be wrong, we correct it visibly, log the correction inside the article, and we don’t pretend the error didn’t happen. This page documents how we handle corrections, how to report one, and what to expect after you do.

How to report an error

If you’ve spotted a factual error in something we’ve published, email corrections [at] bitsfrombytes.com with:

  • The URL of the article
  • The specific claim that’s wrong, including the exact quote or section
  • What you believe the accurate information is
  • A primary source or other supporting reference, where you have one

You don’t need to be a subject-matter expert to report an error. Readers who notice something off — a stale price, a discontinued product still listed as current, a misquoted statistic, a broken claim — are some of our most valuable fact-checkers.

If you’re an executive or representative of a company we covered and you believe we got something wrong about your product or organization, email the same address. We treat your message as a correction request, not a media-relations interaction. We will evaluate the underlying factual question regardless of the messenger.

How we process corrections

Every correction request goes to the editor on duty within one business day. We confirm receipt by email. The author of the article and the editor-in-chief are notified.

Our review process for each request:

  1. We verify the claim against the original source the article cited.
  2. If the original source contradicts the article, we correct the article.
  3. If the original source supports the article but the reader has provided a more current or more authoritative source, we evaluate the new source and update the article accordingly.
  4. If we cannot verify the reader’s correction against a credible source, we respond explaining why and ask for additional information.
  5. If the dispute concerns interpretation rather than fact — a verdict the reader disagrees with, a recommendation they find weak — we evaluate it as feedback rather than a correction, and respond in that frame.

Our target turnaround for substantive corrections is five business days. Simple corrections (a typo, a broken link, an outdated price that has a direct replacement) we handle the same day when we can.

How we mark corrections

When we correct an article, we update the article in place and we add a correction note at the bottom of the piece. The note follows this format:

Correction (June 12, 2026): An earlier version of this article stated that the Bambu Lab A1 mini ships with a textured PEI plate by default. The A1 mini ships with a smooth PEI plate. The article has been updated.

The “Last modified” date at the top of the article is updated when a correction is published. Substantive corrections — anything that changes a fact, a number, a recommendation, or a verdict — are surfaced in this visible note. Minor corrections that don’t change the article’s meaning (typos, broken links repaired, an outdated screenshot replaced) are made silently because surfacing them creates clutter without serving readers, but they are logged in our internal correction ledger.

If a correction changes the article meaningfully enough that the original conclusion no longer holds, we don’t just edit the body — we update the headline, the meta description, and any social cards that point to the piece. If a recommendation is no longer supportable, we say so.

When the correction concerns a quote or paraphrase of an identifiable person or organization, we contact that party to confirm the corrected version before publishing.

Substantial revisions vs corrections

A correction fixes a discrete factual error. A substantial revision is different — it’s a re-evaluation of an article in light of new information that wasn’t available at the time of writing. When we revise an article substantially (a new product version ships, a service we recommended changes ownership, a vulnerability we discussed gets patched), we note the revision at the top of the article and we keep an archive of the prior version available on request.

Articles older than one year are reviewed annually for accuracy. Articles in our top-100 traffic earners are reviewed quarterly. When a review surfaces material that’s no longer correct, we revise or, where the article no longer serves readers, we deprecate it with a note explaining why.

What we don’t do

We don’t silently delete articles to make errors disappear. If an article has to come down because it’s irreparably wrong or because it dealt with a product that no longer exists in any recognizable form, the URL returns a short note explaining what happened and pointing readers to relevant current coverage.

We don’t change an article’s published date to make the piece look newer than it is. The publication date is the date the article first went live. The “Last modified” date moves only when we genuinely re-read and edited the piece.

We don’t pull a correction note after the correction has been made. The historical record stays visible on the article so readers can see what we got wrong and how we handled it.

When we disagree with a complaint

If we receive a correction request that we don’t accept, we explain why in our response. The most common reasons we don’t act on a request:

  • The reader’s claim isn’t supported by a credible source.
  • The reader disagrees with our interpretation rather than a fact (this is feedback, not a correction).
  • The reader is asking us to remove unfavorable but accurate coverage of a product or company.

We don’t remove accurate coverage at a subject’s request. We don’t add favorable language to balance unfavorable coverage that is itself accurate. Where the underlying journalism is sound, our verdict stands.

If you’ve sent a correction request and we declined it, you’re welcome to escalate to the editor-in-chief at editor [at] bitsfrombytes.com with the full context of the original request and our response.

Public correction archive

We maintain a chronological log of substantive corrections made to BitsFromBytes articles since the site relaunched in April 2026. The log is available on request at corrections [at] bitsfrombytes.com. We do not publish it as a standing page on the site at present, but we may add one when the volume of corrections justifies it. The internal log includes the date of the correction, the article affected, the original error, and the corrected version.