Our commitment
Gecktechs aims to publish accurate work, but responsible journalism also requires a clear process for mistakes. When a factual error is confirmed, we correct it promptly and in a way that helps the reader understand the reliable information. We do not leave a known error online to preserve appearance or remove a meaningful mistake without an appropriate note.
Corrections are different from changes in opinion or new developments. A reader may reasonably disagree with an analysis without showing that a fact is wrong. An article may also become outdated because a company, rule or event changed after publication. These situations may require a clarification or update rather than a correction.
How to request a review
Use the Contact page and include the article URL, the exact sentence or element in question, the proposed correction and a reliable supporting source. Specific information allows the editorial team to review a request faster. Personal abuse, repeated identical messages and demands unsupported by evidence do not improve the process.
A person or organisation mentioned in an article may provide documents or context that were not available before publication. We assess that material on its merits. A correction request does not grant the subject the right to rewrite an article, remove accurate criticism or obtain private information about a source.
Our review process
An editor compares the published statement with reporting notes, cited sources and the evidence submitted. We may consult the writer, a specialist or the relevant organisation. High-impact claims receive priority, especially when an error could affect health, safety, financial decisions or a person’s reputation.
We aim to acknowledge a substantive request within a reasonable period, but complex reviews may take longer. Speed should not create another error. If the claim cannot be resolved, we may add context, describe the dispute or leave the article unchanged. The decision is based on evidence and reader understanding rather than the status of the person requesting the change.
Types of change
A correction fixes information that was wrong at the time of publication. A clarification improves wording that was accurate but could create a misleading interpretation. An update adds meaningful new information that emerged later. A copy edit fixes spelling, grammar, formatting or a broken link without changing the substance.
Material corrections receive a note explaining what changed. Small copy edits generally do not need a public note. The updated date should reflect a meaningful revision, not a cosmetic refresh. When an entire premise is invalid, we may retract the article while preserving a notice that explains the decision instead of simply returning a missing page.
Learning from errors
Editors review significant corrections for patterns. Repeated issues may lead to stronger source requirements, checklist changes, additional specialist review or clearer responsibility between writer and editor. The goal is not to punish an honest report of a mistake; it is to reduce the chance of the same cause appearing again.
Transparent correction strengthens trust because it gives readers a way to evaluate our process. Gecktechs welcomes good-faith scrutiny and treats a well-supported correction request as part of maintaining the publication. The standard is straightforward: the current article should be as accurate, clear and useful as we can make it.
A correction is part of the record
Gecktechs does not treat a correction as an inconvenience to hide. A clear correction protects readers, improves future reporting and provides an accountable record of what changed. The prominence of the note depends on the significance of the error. A minor spelling fix may not need a notice, while an incorrect number, attribution, recommendation or conclusion requires an explanation close to the affected material. If the central premise cannot be repaired responsibly, editors may retract the article and retain a notice explaining the decision rather than silently removing the page.
Correction requests are assessed on evidence, not on the status or persistence of the requester. Commercial pressure, threats to withdraw access or a preference for more flattering language do not establish an error. At the same time, an ordinary reader with strong documentation receives serious consideration. We aim to acknowledge well-formed requests promptly, but complex questions can require source review or expert consultation. The final response may confirm a change, explain why the original statement stands or describe additional reporting still underway.