Corrections Policy

We get things wrong sometimes. A job listing’s salary figure changes on the employer’s end after we’ve published it. A statistic in a blog article goes stale as government thresholds update. A link breaks because a company restructures its careers page. This policy explains how we handle it when that happens — how to report a problem, what we do once we know about it, and how we distinguish a minor fix from a correction worth flagging openly.

Why we have a formal corrections process

Plenty of websites edit content quietly and move on, with no record that anything changed. We think that’s the wrong approach for a site people rely on to make real decisions — where to apply, what salary to expect, how to prepare for an interview. If something we published was wrong, you deserve to know it was wrong and that it’s now been fixed, not just encounter silently updated content with no acknowledgment that an error existed in the first place.

What counts as a correction

We distinguish between a few different categories of change, because they warrant different levels of visibility:

Factual corrections

An error of fact — an incorrect statutory rate, a misstated statistic, a wrong date, a mischaracterisation of how a process works. These get corrected in the content itself, and for blog articles, the “last updated” date changes to reflect it. For anything material — a figure that could genuinely mislead a reader’s decision-making — we note the correction directly in the article text, rather than editing invisibly.

Listing corrections

An inaccuracy in a job listing — wrong salary, outdated requirements, a broken application link, a role that’s actually already closed despite showing as Active. These are corrected directly in the listing as soon as we’ve verified the issue, following the same standards described in our Job Verification & Methodology page.

Updates for currency

Not every content change is a correction of an error — some are simply keeping accurate content current as circumstances change (an annual statutory rate increasing, a new government scheme launching). These are routine maintenance rather than corrections in the strict sense, but they’re still reflected in the “last updated” date so you can judge how current an article is.

Minor edits

Small clarity improvements, typo fixes, or formatting adjustments that don’t affect the substance or accuracy of the content aren’t treated as formal corrections requiring an in-text note, though we still make them when we notice them or when they’re reported.

How to report a problem

The most reliable way to report anything — a factual error in an article, an inaccurate job listing, a broken link, an outdated statistic — is through our Contact page. To help us investigate quickly, please include:

• The specific page URL where you found the issue
• What you believe is wrong, as specifically as possible
• Where relevant, a source or reference supporting the correct information (for a statutory rate or statistic, a link to the official government page is ideal)

You don’t need to be certain you’re right to report something — if you think a figure looks off or a link seems broken, tell us and we’ll verify it. We’d rather investigate ten reports where nine turn out to be fine than miss the one genuine error because someone assumed we already knew.

What happens after you report something

Once we receive a report, our process is:

1. We verify the issue. For a factual claim in an article, this typically means checking the original source or the current official reference (GOV.UK, HMRC, ACAS, or similar, depending on the topic). For a job listing, it may mean checking the employer’s own current posting or, where necessary, contacting the employer directly.
2. We correct the content. Once verified, we update the article or listing. For listings, this might mean correcting a detail, updating the closing date, or in the case of an unresponsive scam-pattern listing, removing it outright per our Job Verification & Methodology standards.
3. We update the visible date. Blog articles show their last-updated date; this changes to reflect the correction.
4. For material corrections, we note it in the content. If the original error could have genuinely misled someone’s decision (a materially wrong salary figure, an incorrect statutory entitlement), we add a brief, clearly marked note in the article or on the listing acknowledging what changed, rather than silently rewriting history.
5. We let you know, where practical. If you reported the issue and provided contact information, we’ll confirm once it’s been addressed.

Response times

We prioritise corrections based on potential impact. Reports involving a suspected scam listing, an application-fee request, or a safety concern are treated as urgent and reviewed as quickly as possible. Factual errors in blog content or minor listing inaccuracies are typically reviewed within a few business days. We don’t currently commit to a fixed service-level response time, because the right priority depends heavily on what’s being reported — but nothing gets ignored.

What we do when we disagree with a reported correction

Not every report turns out to identify an actual error — sometimes what looks like a mistake is a legitimate difference in interpretation, or the reporter has an outdated or partial picture of the situation. When that happens, we look into it properly rather than dismissing it out of hand, and if after investigation we conclude the original content was accurate, we’ll generally explain why if you’ve provided a way to reach you. We don’t make changes just because someone asserts an error exists — we verify first, in both directions.

Historical corrections and expired job listings

Because we don’t delete expired job listings (see our Expired Jobs Policy), corrections to older, now-expired listings are handled a little differently — we’ll still fix a factual error (a wrong company name, an incorrect location) if reported, but we generally don’t retroactively update details like salary to reflect changes an employer made after the role closed, since the listing is preserved as a historical record at that point rather than an active piece of information.

Accountability for this policy itself

If you think we’ve failed to follow this policy — a report went unanswered, a clear error remained uncorrected for an unreasonable time — please say so directly through our Contact page. We’d rather hear that we’ve fallen short of our own stated standard than have it go unmentioned.

The difference between a correction and a disagreement

It’s worth being clear about a distinction that comes up sometimes: not every report we receive is asking us to fix a factual error. Occasionally someone disagrees with an opinion or a piece of general guidance in an article — for instance, a reader who thinks our recommended CV length is wrong for their specific industry, or who has a different view on how to answer a particular interview question. That’s a genuinely useful kind of feedback, and we read it carefully, but it’s a different category from a factual correction, and we handle it differently. Where a topic has legitimate room for differing professional opinions, we’re more likely to note an alternative perspective or caveat than to rewrite the article to adopt a single reader’s view as the only correct one. Where a claim is objectively checkable — a statutory rate, a specific date, a factual description of how a process works — we treat it as a straightforward correction once verified.

Corrections involving other people or companies

Occasionally a correction request involves how we’ve described a specific company or individual — for example, an employer disputing a detail in a job listing we sourced from a public posting, or a company mentioned in a blog article believing we’ve mischaracterised something about them. We take these seriously and investigate them with the same verification process described above, but we also apply a basic principle of fairness: we won’t remove accurate, well-sourced information simply because the subject of it would prefer it weren’t published. If a genuine inaccuracy is identified, we correct it. If the underlying information is accurate but the subject simply disagrees with how it reflects on them, we’re unlikely to remove it, though we’re always willing to hear the concern and consider whether additional context would make the piece fairer.

Frequently Asked Questions

How do I report an error in a blog article?

Use our Contact page, including the article URL and what you believe is incorrect, ideally with a source if the error relates to a factual claim like a statutory rate.

Will you tell me if a correction was made because of my report?

Yes, where you’ve provided a way to contact you, we’ll confirm once the issue has been reviewed and addressed.

Do you edit content silently, without any record that a correction happened?

For minor edits (typos, formatting), yes. For material factual corrections that could have affected someone’s understanding or decision-making, no — we note the correction directly in the content and update the visible “last updated” date.

What if I report something and you conclude it wasn’t actually an error?

We’ll investigate properly regardless, and if we conclude the original content was accurate, we’ll generally explain why, provided you’ve given us a way to respond to you.

Do expired job listings get updated the same way as active ones?

Factual errors (wrong company name, incorrect location) are still corrected on expired listings if reported. Details that would have changed on the employer’s end after the role closed generally aren’t retroactively updated, since the listing serves as a historical record at that point.