Skip to content
GEOoptimised

Corrections

Everything we have got wrong, kept here permanently with the date we found out. We do not silently edit pages. A site that grades other people's evidence has no business hiding its own mistakes, and the cheapest way to prove that is to publish them before anyone catches them.

2 corrections logged

  1. 001 2026-07-10 corrected before publication /evidence/#answer-instability

    What we said

    SparkToro found that AI assistants return an identical brand list less than 0.1% of the time.

    What is actually true

    SparkToro found that the same brand list repeats less than 1 time in 100 (under 1%). The 1-in-1,000 figure, about 0.1%, applies to getting the same list in the same ORDER. The two are routinely conflated.

    How we found out

    The error entered our own research notes from a secondary summary. We caught it while fetching the SparkToro post directly to verify the figure before writing about it. We had already repeated the wrong number once in our working notes.

    The lesson

    This is the exact failure this site exists to catch, and we committed it on day one, on the single claim we were most confident about. A real statistic drifted by a factor of ten in the space of one retelling. Nobody lied. Somebody paraphrased.

  2. 002 2026-07-10 corrected before publication /methodology/

    What we said

    The first draft of the grading scale had five grades and no way to mark a claim that a good study disproves.

    What is actually true

    It graded the popular claim 'you can track your brand's ranking position in AI answers' as VERIFIED, because we had verified the SparkToro study that demolishes it. That is backwards. A sixth grade, REFUTED, now covers it, and the scale is explicit that a grade describes the claim as it circulates, never the finding that settles it.

    How we found out

    We found it while building the page that renders the ledger. Two claims came out reading as though we endorsed the thing we were disproving.

    The lesson

    A grading scale that cannot express 'this popular claim is false' is not a grading scale, it is a citation list.

Why the first entries are our own

Both corrections above were made before this site had a single reader. That is not a coincidence, and it is not humility theatre. The failure this site exists to catch, a real number quietly drifting as it is retold, is not something other people do because they are careless. It happened to us on the claim we were most confident about, within hours of starting.

If we had not gone back to the primary source, we would have published it. That is the entire argument for going back to the primary source.