Corrections Policy
Gladewick takes factual accuracy seriously enough to have a formal, public corrections process. This page explains exactly how errors are reported, how they’re investigated, how quickly they’re acted on, and how corrections are labelled transparently in published articles.
Acknowledged Personally
Every reported error gets a real reply from Gladewick’s editor — usually within 24 hours, and not an automated response.
Verified Against Sources
Before anything is changed, the reported claim — and the proposed fix — is checked against authoritative primary sources, not just accepted at face value.
Transparently Labelled
Material corrections are labelled in the article — what changed, what it said before, and when. Nothing is buried or hidden.
One Accountable Editor
Gladewick is written and edited by one person. Every correction is made and signed off by the founder — there’s no anonymous “team” to hide behind.
Why This Policy Exists
Every publication makes mistakes. The difference between a trustworthy publication and an untrustworthy one is not whether errors occur — it’s how they’re handled when they do. A publication that silently edits errors, deflects accountability, or ignores reader corrections is making an editorial choice that puts reputation management ahead of reader trust.
Gladewick chooses the opposite. Transparent error correction — done promptly, labelled clearly, and verified against authoritative sources — is one of the most concrete ways a publisher can earn trust. This Corrections Policy is a public commitment to that standard.
This policy also exists because our content has real-world consequences. When a reader follows a Gladewick guide to wire an outlet, plant a tree, or apply a fertiliser, they’re acting on information we published. If that information is wrong, the consequences can be financial, physical, or both. We take that responsibility seriously.
One person, fully accountable. Gladewick is written and edited by one person — its founder, Sameer Patel. There is no separate “editorial team” or review panel: when you report an error, it’s read, investigated, and corrected by the same person who’s accountable for the site. Throughout this page, “we” means that one-person operation, and every correction carries the founder’s accountability by default.
What Counts as a Correction
Not every article update is a correction. Gladewick regularly updates content to keep it current — adding new product options, refreshing pricing, updating seasonal guidance, and expanding articles with new information. These updates are not corrections and are not labelled as such.
A correction is specifically a change made to content because the original information was factually wrong, misleading, or incomplete in a way that could cause a reader to make an incorrect decision.
Examples that require a formal correction
- A measurement, dimension, or specification stated incorrectly — for example, the wrong wire gauge for a circuit amperage rating
- A safety instruction that was incorrect, incomplete, or absent in a context where safety was material — for example, a missing ground fault interrupter requirement in a wet-area electrical article
- A product claim stated as fact that was incorrect — for example, a stated battery runtime that doesn’t match the manufacturer’s own figures
- A building code or permit requirement stated incorrectly — for example, citing an outdated code version or stating that no permit is required when one is
- A plant hardiness zone, fertiliser application rate, or chemical concentration stated incorrectly in a gardening article
- A price, product model number, or product availability stated incorrectly in a product write-up
- A source, credential, or qualification described inaccurately anywhere on the site
Examples that do not require a formal correction
- Adding a new product recommendation that did not previously exist — this is an update, not a correction
- A difference of opinion between the writer and the reader — this is a disagreement, not an error (see Section 10)
- A style or formatting preference the reader disagrees with — this is subjective feedback, not an error
- A product price that has changed since publication — this is a routine update, not a correction, unless the original price stated was never correct
Types of Corrections
Gladewick classifies corrections into four categories based on severity and the potential consequences of the original error. Each category has its own target response time.
Safety-Critical Correction
An error that could lead a reader to take an action that risks personal injury, property damage, fire, flooding, electrocution, or other serious harm. Examples: incorrect electrical wiring instructions, missing asbestos disturbance warnings, incorrect structural load guidance, unsafe chemical application rates.
Treated as top priority — see the note below
Factual Correction
An error that states something factually incorrect — a measurement, specification, code requirement, product attribute, or standard — that could lead a reader to make a wrong decision. Examples: incorrect tile square footage, wrong fertiliser application rate, outdated building code reference.
Corrected within ~2–3 business days of confirmation
Minor Factual Correction
A small factual error that doesn’t affect any decision a reader would make — for example, a typo in a product model number or a minor numerical error that doesn’t affect the practical guidance.
Corrected within ~5 business days
Clarification or Context Addition
The original statement wasn’t technically incorrect but was incomplete or ambiguous in a way that could lead to misunderstanding. For example, guidance that’s accurate for most US regions but not for a specific jurisdiction, without adequate qualification.
Assessed and updated within ~7 business days
On safety-critical reports: these are treated as the top priority and reviewed as fast as one person reasonably can. If content appears genuinely unsafe, it’s flagged or temporarily removed while it’s checked against authoritative standards. Because Gladewick is a one-person publication and not a substitute for a professional, please also treat any safety-critical task — electrical, structural, gas, or similar — as something to confirm with a licensed local professional before you act on it.
How to Report an Error
If you believe any content on Gladewick.com is factually incorrect, misleading, unsafe, or outdated, we want to hear from you. Reader corrections are one of the most valuable tools for maintaining accuracy at scale, and every report is taken seriously.
Step-by-step: how to submit a correction report
Email us
Send your correction report to support@gladewick.com with the subject line “Correction Request”. That subject line flags it for correction review so it isn’t lost in general email.
Include the article URL
Paste the full URL of the article that contains the error. This makes it possible to locate the exact article immediately and removes any confusion between articles covering similar topics.
Describe the specific error clearly
Tell us exactly what the article currently says and why you believe it’s incorrect. Quote the specific sentence or passage you’re disputing. The more specific you are, the faster it can be investigated. Vague reports — such as “something in this article is wrong” — are much harder to act on.
Share your source, if you have one
If you have a source that supports the correction — a manufacturer specification sheet, a government code document, a peer-reviewed study, or hands-on professional experience — please include it. It will be verified independently as part of the review, but having a starting point speeds things up considerably. A source is helpful but not required to submit a report.
Safety-critical reports: if you believe an article contains information that could physically harm a reader who follows it — for example, incorrect electrical, structural, chemical, or tool-use guidance — mark your subject line “URGENT — Safety Correction Request.” These are treated as the top priority: the content is checked against authoritative safety sources right away, and anything that looks genuinely unsafe is flagged or removed while it’s verified.
Our Corrections Workflow
Every correction report follows the same steps, from the moment it’s received to the moment the corrected article is republished. Here’s exactly what happens.
Report received and logged
Your report is logged with a timestamp. If you left an email address, you get a personal acknowledgement — usually within 24 hours — confirming it’s been received and is being looked into. That’s a real reply, not an automated one.
Claim verified against primary sources
The reported claim is checked against authoritative primary sources — manufacturer specifications, government codes, trade-body guidance, and peer-reviewed research. The reporter’s word alone isn’t enough: the proposed correction itself also has to check out against sources before it replaces the original information.
Error confirmed or disputed
The investigation reaches one of three conclusions. Confirmed: the article contains a factual error and a correction is required. Partially confirmed: the article isn’t wrong but is incomplete or ambiguous, and a clarification is appropriate. Not confirmed: the sources support the original content, and no change is required. In all three cases, we reply to the reporter explaining the conclusion and the reasoning.
Article corrected precisely
If a correction is confirmed, the article is revised. The fix is precise: only the factually incorrect information is changed. A correction is never used as cover to substantially rewrite an article in ways unrelated to the reported error.
Correction re-verified before republishing
Before the article goes back up, the correction is re-checked against the same authoritative sources, confirmed not to have introduced a new error, and read in context to make sure it’s consistent with the rest of the article. For safety-critical topics, it’s verified against current official standards, with a reminder for readers to confirm with a licensed professional.
Corrected article republished with a transparent label
The corrected article is published with a correction notice labelled within the article body — not hidden in the footer or the metadata, but visible to any reader. The “Last Updated” date is revised, and where possible the reporter who flagged the error is told that the correction is live.
Timelines & Response Standards
The following are the target timelines for each correction category. Gladewick is a one-person publication operating across time zones, so these are realistic targets rather than guaranteed service levels — but they’re the standard we hold ourselves to, and safety always jumps the queue.
| Correction Type | Acknowledgement | Investigation & Decision | Correction Published |
|---|---|---|---|
| Safety-Critical | Within 24 hours | Treated as top priority | As fast as reasonably possible; unsafe content flagged or removed promptly while it’s checked |
| Factual — Standard | Within 24 hours | Within a few business days | Within ~2–3 business days of confirmation |
| Factual — Minor | Within ~2 business days | Within a week | Within ~5 business days of confirmation |
| Clarification | Within ~2 business days | Within a week | Within ~7 business days of assessment |
| Report not confirmed | Within ~2 business days | Within a week | Written response explaining the conclusion sent to the reporter |
The “correction published” timelines run from the point at which the error is confirmed — not from the point of receipt. Confirmation requires verifying the reported error against primary sources. Where that verification takes longer — for example, when a building code version has to be checked against a specific jurisdiction — the timeline may extend accordingly, and we’ll say so in our reply to the reporter.
How We Label Corrections
Transparent labelling is the most visible part of this policy. Gladewick never silently edits published content. Every material correction is labelled clearly within the article body, so that any reader — whether they’re reading the article for the first time or returning after reading the original — can see what changed and when.
What correction labels look like in practice
Safety-critical correction notice — appears at the top of the article, before any article content:
⚠️ Correction notice — July 1, 2026: This article previously stated that 14-gauge wire is appropriate for a 20-amp circuit. That was incorrect. 20-amp circuits require 12-gauge wire minimum per NEC 310.15. The article has been corrected and re-verified against the code. For any electrical work, always confirm requirements with a licensed electrician and your local building department. We apologise for the error.
Standard factual correction notice — appears adjacent to the corrected content within the article body:
Correction — July 1, 2026: This section previously stated a coverage rate of 1,000 sq ft per bag. The correct coverage rate is 5,000 sq ft per bag, per the manufacturer’s published specification. The error has been corrected.
Minor correction notice — appears in the article’s update log at the bottom of the page:
Last Updated: July 1, 2026 — Minor correction: a product model number was corrected from “XR-200” to “XR-250.” No practical guidance was affected.
Clarification notice — appears adjacent to the clarified content:
Clarification added — July 1, 2026: The guidance in this section applies to jurisdictions that have adopted the 2021 IRC. Requirements may differ where earlier code versions are in force. Always verify permit requirements with your local building department.
What we always include in a correction label
- The word “Correction” or “Clarification” — clearly and prominently stated, never softened or euphemised
- The date on which the correction was published
- A description of what the article previously said and what it now says
- The authoritative source the correction is based on, where a specific source applies (for example, a manufacturer spec or a code section)
- A plain acknowledgement of the error where appropriate — we don’t minimise or deflect when we were wrong
What we never do with correction labels
- Bury the correction notice in a footer, sidebar, or metadata field where casual readers won’t see it
- Use vague language such as “updated” or “revised” to describe a factual error — corrections are called corrections
- Remove the correction label after a period of time — correction labels are permanent within the article
- Dress a correction up with a fake reviewer name or credential — corrections are attributed honestly to the editor and to the source they’re based on
Verifying the Correction
One of the most important — and most often skipped — parts of a corrections process is what happens to the article after the fix is made. It’s easy to correct one error and, in doing so, introduce another, contradict something else in the article, or fail to fully address the underlying problem. Gladewick guards against that with a deliberate re-verification step before anything is republished.
A corrected article isn’t simply a patched version of a flawed one. It’s held to the same accuracy standard as the original — re-checked against authoritative sources, not just accepted because the fix “looks right.”
What re-verification means in practice
- The correction is checked against the same kind of authoritative primary sources used for original research — a manufacturer spec, a government code, or trade-body guidance — not accepted as-is
- For safety-critical topics, the correction is verified against current official standards and manufacturer safety data, and readers are reminded to confirm with a licensed local professional
- The fix is read in context — not just in isolation — to make sure it’s consistent with the rest of the article and hasn’t created a new contradiction
- The correction label states when the fix was made and the source it’s based on, so the corrected version is fully accountable
- If the re-check turns up any remaining problem, the article isn’t republished until it’s resolved
Why this matters: publishing a correction without re-verifying it risks swapping one error for another. Re-checking the fix against authoritative sources means the corrected article meets the same accuracy bar as the original — not a lower one just because it was done in a hurry.
What We Will Not Do
These are hard commitments. None of the following will happen at Gladewick in relation to a correction, regardless of the circumstances.
- We will not silently edit errors. Every factual correction to published content is labelled — no exceptions. A reader who bookmarked an article and returns after a correction will always be able to see that it’s been corrected and what changed.
- We will not ignore a correction report. Every report is investigated. If a report arrives from someone with a commercial interest in the outcome — a competing brand, a former partner — it’s investigated with the same rigour as any other.
- We will not sit on a safety issue. If an article contains information that could physically harm a reader who follows it, it’s addressed as the top priority — and flagged or removed while it’s checked — regardless of publishing schedules, commercial considerations, or anything else.
- We will not let a brand or advertiser block a correction. If a product write-up contains an error that’s unfavourable to a brand — for example, a performance claim that was wrong — the correction is published regardless of the brand’s objection or any commercial relationship.
- We will not remove correction labels once posted. Correction notices are a permanent part of an article’s record. They aren’t removed even after time has passed — the record of a correction is part of the article’s history.
- We will not republish a corrected article without re-verifying it. No matter how small the fix looks, the corrected article is re-checked against authoritative sources before it goes back up.
Reader Feedback & Disagreements
Not every reader concern is a factual error. Some readers disagree with a recommendation, prefer a different product, use a different technique, or have had a different experience with a product than we described. These are legitimate perspectives — but they’re disagreements, not corrections.
Gladewick distinguishes clearly between factual errors and honest disagreements. A factual error is a statement that’s objectively wrong. A disagreement is a difference of informed judgement between the writer and the reader.
How we handle disagreements
- We take substantive disagreements seriously: if you have professional experience or research that you believe contradicts our guidance, email support@gladewick.com with the specific claim and the basis of your disagreement. If it raises a genuine question of accuracy, it’s treated as a potential correction and verified against sources.
- Well-founded disagreements are noted: even where the sources end up supporting the original content, a well-reasoned disagreement from a reader with relevant experience is logged and may inform future article updates or additions.
- We don’t change recommendations based on preference alone: if a reader simply prefers a product we didn’t recommend, that isn’t a correction. Recommendations are based on research and the criteria stated in each article — not reader lobbying — and rankings aren’t adjusted just because someone asks.
On regional variation: home and garden guidance varies significantly by location. A reader in Arizona may have a very different experience with a product than a reader in Minnesota. If an article doesn’t adequately note that guidance is climate-specific or jurisdiction-specific, that’s a legitimate feedback point — and it’s treated as a clarification request rather than a matter of preference. We aim to make regional variation explicit in any guidance that’s location-dependent.
Contact & Related Pages
To report a factual error, raise a safety concern, or ask a question about how a specific correction was handled, please use the contact details below.
Report an Error or Inaccuracy
For all factual corrections, safety concerns, or accuracy questions about Gladewick content:
support@gladewick.comSubject line: “Correction Request” for standard reports, or “URGENT — Safety Correction Request” for safety-critical concerns.
For editorial policy questions, contributor matters, or press enquiries:
hello@gladewick.comYou can also use our Contact Us page to submit a correction report through the online form.
Explore our editorial and trust documents:
- Editorial Policy — The standards framework governing all Gladewick content
- About Gladewick — Who runs the site and how it works
- Affiliate Disclosure — How commercial relationships are kept separate from editorial decisions
- Privacy Policy — How we collect, use, and protect your personal data
- Terms of Use — The legal terms governing your use of Gladewick.com
- Disclaimer — Liability limitations for our home and garden advice content