Correction policy

Software changes weekly and no publication gets everything right. What distinguishes a trustworthy one is not the absence of errors but what it does about them.

Report an error

Email partners@softwarespick.com. The most useful report includes:

• the page URL;
• what is wrong;
• what it should say;
• a link to a source that shows it, if you have one.

You do not need all four. "Your CRM article says the free plan includes three users and it is now two" is enough to act on. We aim to reply to every message within three business days.

Anyone can report an error, including the vendor whose product is described. Correcting a factual mistake about a product is always free and always welcome.

What we correct

Factual errors — wrong prices, plan limits, feature availability, platform support, company names, ownership, dates, statistics or quotations. Corrected as a priority.

Outdated information — a product discontinued, repackaged, acquired, renamed or substantially changed since publication. Corrected as soon as we can verify the new position.

Broken and misdirected links — including links that now point somewhere unrelated.

Misleading framing — where a statement is technically accurate but leaves a reasonable reader with a false impression. These take longer because they require a judgement rather than a lookup, but they are treated as corrections, not preferences.

What we do not change on request

A fair criticism, because a vendor dislikes it. If a limitation is real, it stays. If you can show it is no longer real, that is a correction and we will make it.

A verdict, because it is commercially inconvenient. No commercial relationship buys an edit. See our advertiser disclosure.

Deletion of a page to remove unflattering coverage. We correct and update; we do not quietly disappear pages that a company wishes did not exist.

Legitimate disagreement presented as error. If you think our assessment is wrong, make the argument to partners@softwarespick.com — we have changed pages on the strength of a good one. But an opinion you disagree with is not a factual error.

How quickly

• Materially misleading errors — anything that could lead someone to spend money on the wrong basis — are fixed as soon as we can verify the correct information, ahead of any other work.
• Ordinary factual errors — usually within a few working days.
• Minor issues — typographical errors, formatting, small link fixes — at the next update of that page, and immediately if they affect meaning.

How corrections are marked

The scale of the change decides how it is shown:

Substantive corrections — where the original said something false that a reader may have acted on — get a dated correction note at the foot of the page describing what was wrong and what it now says. We do not silently overwrite a claim someone may have relied on.

Routine updates — a price that has moved, a feature that has shifted tier, a new version — are made in place and reflected in the page's "Updated" date. These are maintenance, not corrections, and marking every one of them would drown the notes that matter.

Structural rewrites — where a page is substantially rebuilt because the market changed — are noted as a rewrite with the date, so a returning reader knows they are looking at something new.

In every case, the "Updated" date changes only when the content actually changed. We never refresh dates for freshness.

Pages we retire

Occasionally a page stops being worth maintaining — a product is discontinued, a category collapses, or the page was never good enough. When that happens we either rewrite it properly or redirect it to the most useful remaining page. We do not leave dead pages standing to catch search traffic, and we do not delete URLs without redirecting them.

Accountability

Corrections are handled by the same editorial team that publishes the content, at partners@softwarespick.com. If you report something and hear nothing, or you think we have brushed off a legitimate correction, escalate it to partners@softwarespick.com and say so directly. That is a failure of this policy and we want to know.

Related: our editorial policy sets out the standards a page is supposed to meet in the first place.