Corrections policy
Corrections policy
Help us identify the statement, understand the evidence and address the right issue. If you find a factual problem on SEOS.co, use the contact route with the affected URL, the exact statement and a source supporting the proposed correction. A precise report connects the concern with evidence. This policy explains what to include, how to distinguish a correction from an editorial disagreement and how to avoid sharing information that should remain private.
Start with the exact issue
A page can contain many different kinds of statements: an agency’s stated service, an attributed result, an explanation of research or an editorial assessment. Identify the particular statement you believe is wrong. A report that names the claim is more useful than a general request to update a page, because it makes the question and the relevant evidence inspectable.
Include the full page URL rather than only the site name or a search result screenshot. Quote enough of the statement to locate it and explain what you believe should change. If several issues exist, separate them. An incorrect office location, a discontinued service and a disputed interpretation may require different sources and should not be combined into a single unsupported conclusion.
You do not need to make a legal argument or prepare a long presentation. The useful starting point is a clear account of the problem. Describe what the page says, what you believe is correct and why the supporting source addresses that difference. If you are uncertain about part of the issue, state that uncertainty rather than filling it with an assumption.
A useful correction report has five parts
First, provide the affected URL. Second, identify the exact statement or broken destination. Third, describe the proposed correction in plain language. Fourth, explain why the change is warranted and link to a relevant public primary source where possible. Fifth, give the date of a known change and your relationship to the subject, if those details help interpret the report.
The relationship information is context, not a replacement for evidence. An agency representative may know that a service changed, while an independent reader may find a misquoted study. Either can make a useful report. The issue is whether the supplied material establishes the specific correction rather than whether the reporter prefers the current presentation.
For a hypothetical example, a report might identify a sentence describing an office in a city, explain that the office closed on a known date and link to the agency’s current official location page. That is more specific than asking for a profile refresh. This illustration is not an account of an actual agency correction or a promise about the outcome of a request.
Match the source to the correction
Use a source that can establish the fact in question. An official agency page can support a correction to the agency’s current stated services or contact location. Original research can help resolve whether a study was quoted correctly. A destination URL can establish that a link is broken or leads to unrelated material. The best source depends on the claim.
Check whether the source supports the full proposed change. A company saying that it serves a market does not necessarily establish a physical office there. A new service page does not necessarily establish the date a service began. A reported result does not independently establish its cause. If the evidence supports only a narrower statement, describe the narrower correction.
Avoid relying on repetition as independent confirmation. Several pages may reproduce one originating announcement. That can help locate the announcement, but it does not create several independent observations. If sources conflict, identify the conflict and explain which information is current or authoritative for the particular fact, where you can establish that distinction.
Common factual issues
A broken or incorrect link
Provide the page containing the link, the link label and the destination it currently reaches. If you know the correct public destination, include it and explain why it is the appropriate replacement. Do not assume that a temporary loading problem means a resource has permanently moved. Describe what you observed without inventing a cause.
A location or service that changed
Identify the current statement and the official information supporting the change. Distinguish a service area from an office address, and a service being offered from a completed project in that service. Include a change date if known, but do not guess one merely because the page needs updating.
A quotation, statistic or calculation
Link to the original material and identify the relevant passage, table or calculation. Explain whether the issue is a transcription error, a missing qualification, a wrong period or an inference not supported by the source. A percentage, a baseline and an absolute change are different quantities; the correction should make clear which one is at issue.
An attribution that needs clarification
Explain who made the original claim and how the page currently describes it. Agency-reported results, client perspectives and independent measurements are different. A correction may need to narrow attribution rather than replace the underlying result with an unsupported alternative. Preserve the distinction between what a source says and what has been independently established.
Editorial disagreement is a different question
You may disagree with a recommendation, ranking position or interpretation without identifying a factual error. Explain the evidence or criterion you believe should change the assessment. That makes the disagreement useful and gives it a basis beyond a preference for a different presentation. A request alone does not establish that the existing editorial position is incorrect.
RankScore is an editorial comparison score, not a customer star rating or a forecast of commercial success. A request for a different score or position should not be framed as though a numerical placement were a factual contact detail. Read the methodology and review standards for the distinctions between editorial assessment, agency information and reported outcomes.
If a factual issue and an editorial concern occur together, separate them in your message. For example, first identify an outdated service description with its source, then explain how you believe it affects the interpretation. This avoids using an unproven disagreement to obscure a clear correction, or treating a corrected fact as an automatic entitlement to a preferred position.
What the policy says about assessment
The corrections framework considers the supplied sources and their context. Statements should remain properly attributed, original research should be read in its relevant scope, and incomplete or conflicting evidence may justify qualifying or removing a claim. A correction is not always a substitution of one definite statement for another; sometimes the support warrants a more limited account.
The context matters because a statement can be accurate in one period and misleading in another. A service description may have been current when written but no longer describe the present offer. A report may accurately repeat an announcement while giving readers the wrong impression about when it occurred. Identifying the time dimension helps address the actual problem.
This page does not promise a response deadline, a fixed review timetable or acceptance of every proposed change. It explains how to make the concern inspectable and where to send it. Do not assume that submitting a form establishes agreement with the report, completion of a change or a commitment about editorial placement.
Material changes and routine repairs
Substantive context changes should be made clear when that context matters to the reader. A correction to a material claim can affect how a conclusion is understood. Routine grammar, formatting and broken-link repairs can be made without a separate notice. These changes have different significance and should not be treated as though they all represent new research.
An updated date should not make an old announcement appear new. When reporting a dated event, the event’s timing remains relevant even if a page is improved later. Similarly, a correction to one statement does not establish that every source on the page has been newly investigated. Read the substance of the change rather than drawing a broader conclusion from a date alone.
For your own records, keep the original URL and the statement you reported. If you follow up, repeat the URL and refer to the same issue. That preserves continuity without requiring anyone to reconstruct the concern from a series of messages that omit the affected page or introduce different claims.
Protect private and sensitive information
Do not send passwords, private client records, confidential contracts or customer data through a public correction report. Those materials can expose people and businesses without being necessary to identify the issue. Where possible, provide a public primary source or explain the concern without including sensitive details. Describe the type of evidence rather than pasting private records into the message.
If you represent an agency, check that any client example you reference is appropriate to share publicly. A correction to a public description should not become an accidental disclosure of confidential project information. If no public source exists, state the limitation. Do not manufacture a public claim or imply independent corroboration to compensate for evidence that cannot be shared.
Keep personal criticism out of the factual account. Identify the statement and the evidence rather than speculating about motives. An incorrect detail can have more than one explanation, and a report does not need to establish why an error occurred to show that a correction is warranted. Precision makes the concern easier to assess and avoids adding unsupported accusations.
Use the right route for agency information
For a new agency consideration or inclusion request, use Agency Connect. Provide relevant pages, locations and information about the agency rather than treating a correction report as an application for a particular position. The current form also allows sponsorship interest to be described. Do not infer an acceptance or ranking promise from the existence of that field.
For an existing factual issue, use the contact route and identify the original page. If you are supplying broader profile information at the same time, distinguish the correction from the additional material. A fact that needs repair and a request for expanded coverage are different tasks, even when they concern the same organization.
For a site problem that is not a factual claim, such as a form or display issue, describe the affected URL and what happened. State the device or circumstances if known. Do not send repeated test messages to demonstrate a problem, and do not include private account credentials. A clear description is a safer starting point than unnecessary attempts to reproduce a sensitive action.
A final check before sending
Read the report as though you had not seen the page before. Can another person locate the statement? Does the proposed correction follow from the source? Are dates and relationships explained where they matter? Have you separated fact, interpretation and preference? If those questions are answerable, the report is likely to be more useful than a longer message without a clear evidential path.
Remove information that is not needed to understand the issue. Keep supporting URLs, but avoid attaching confidential background merely to make the report look substantial. If several sources support different parts of the concern, explain which source supports which part. This is a practical way to reduce ambiguity without turning a correction request into a burdensome exercise.
Separate the evidence from the desired wording
You can suggest replacement wording, but explain the fact it is intended to express. A proposed sentence may contain a second claim that the linked source does not establish. For instance, correcting a service description should not introduce an unsupported statement about market leadership. Keep the repair tied to the observed discrepancy and let the evidence determine how broad the corrected statement can be.
If your source contains a qualification, include it. A limited service area, a specified reporting period or a distinction between stated and independently measured results can materially change the meaning. Preserving that context is part of making the correction accurate, not an obstacle to making it clear.
Questions about corrections
Can I request a ranking change through this route?
You can identify a factual issue or explain an evidence-based editorial disagreement. A request for a different position is not itself proof of an error. Keep the factual correction separate and use Agency Connect for new agency consideration information.
What if I do not know when a fact changed?
Say that the change date is unknown and provide the current source. Do not invent a date. The report can still identify a discrepancy, while the uncertainty about timing remains explicit.
Should I send another message if I have more evidence?
If you follow up, repeat the original URL and identify the same statement, then explain what the additional evidence contributes. This helps preserve the connection between the report and the material supporting it without assuming any response or completion timetable.