Corrections Policy | Dog Eat Guide
Accuracy & Accountability

Corrections Policy

Dog Eat Guide wants readers to be able to challenge factual claims, flag outdated information, report broken or weak sources, and raise health or safety concerns. This policy explains how we review correction requests and how meaningful errors should be handled.

Effective August 25, 2026 Health & safety issues prioritized Reader corrections welcome
Our correction standard

When a meaningful factual or safety error is verified, we aim to correct the content rather than defend an outdated claim. The seriousness of the issue determines how urgently it should be reviewed and whether the article needs a visible correction note, a new updated date, or broader re-evaluation.

1. Purpose of this policy

Accuracy matters on every website, but it matters especially when a reader may use content to make a decision about a dog’s food, safety, nutrition, symptoms, or need for veterinary care.

This policy provides a clear route for correcting significant errors and explains how Dog Eat Guide distinguishes substantive corrections from routine editing.

2. What counts as a correction

A correction may be needed when published content contains a meaningful problem such as:

  • A factual statement that is inaccurate.
  • A food-safety conclusion that is wrong, overstated, or missing an important exception.
  • An outdated recommendation that no longer reflects stronger evidence.
  • A numerical serving, calorie, or quantity statement that is unsupported or materially misleading.
  • An inaccurate description of toxicity, symptoms, emergency timing, or medical risk.
  • A broken, misquoted, irrelevant, or incorrectly interpreted source.
  • A misleading author, reviewer, credential, or professional-review claim.
  • A product or ingredient statement that is outdated in a way that affects reader safety.

3. How correction requests are prioritized

Not every issue carries the same risk. Dog Eat Guide should review the most consequential issues first.

HIGH PRIORITY
Potential health, toxicity or emergency harm

Incorrect toxicity advice, dangerous feeding instructions, medication-related claims, emergency guidance, or content that could delay necessary veterinary care.

MEDIUM PRIORITY
Material factual or evidence problem

Incorrect nutritional values, unsupported serving recommendations, outdated veterinary guidance, misleading sourcing, or significant missing context.

STANDARD
Lower-risk editorial issue

Broken links, unclear wording, small factual details, formatting issues, duplicate wording, or other non-urgent improvements.

4. Our correction review process

STEP 01
Identify the exact claim

We locate the sentence, number, source, table, heading, or other element being challenged.

STEP 02
Review the supporting evidence

We compare the claim with relevant regulatory, veterinary, academic, primary, or other credible source material.

STEP 03
Assess the seriousness

We consider whether the issue is cosmetic, factual, medically important, or potentially harmful.

STEP 04
Correct the content if needed

The article may be amended, rewritten, sourced differently, temporarily removed, or more broadly reviewed depending on the problem.

STEP 05
Document material changes appropriately

A meaningful correction may require a visible correction note or updated date. Minor copy edits generally do not.

5. How corrections may be made

Depending on the issue, Dog Eat Guide may:

  • Replace an inaccurate sentence with a corrected version.
  • Add missing safety context or an important exception.
  • Remove an unsupported serving recommendation or medical claim.
  • Replace a weak or outdated citation with a stronger source.
  • Rewrite a section that creates false certainty or could be misunderstood.
  • Update related internal links or FAQs when the same error appears elsewhere.
  • Remove or temporarily unpublish content if a serious safety issue cannot be corrected immediately.

6. When we use a visible correction note

A public correction note is most useful when the original error was material enough that a returning reader should understand that the conclusion changed.

Visible note is appropriate

A safety conclusion changed, a meaningful medical claim was wrong, a materially incorrect number was corrected, or a professional-review claim was removed.

Visible note may not be necessary

Spelling, grammar, punctuation, layout, formatting, minor clarity edits, or a non-substantive broken link.

Example: “Correction: This article previously described the fruit pit as safe to chew. The statement was removed and the section was updated to explain the choking and obstruction risk.”

7. Updated dates and article freshness

An “updated” date should reflect a meaningful editorial review or change. We do not consider changing a date alone to be a substantive update.

When a correction materially changes the article, the updated date may be revised to reflect that work. Routine spelling or formatting edits do not necessarily justify a new update date.

8. Health and safety corrections

Corrections involving toxicity, emergency symptoms, disease-related feeding advice, medication, supplements, or other higher-risk topics receive greater scrutiny because an incorrect statement may have real consequences.

  • We prefer stronger professional or primary evidence for high-risk corrections.
  • We may remove a questionable claim while it is being re-evaluated.
  • A major medical rewrite may require fresh professional review if an article is genuinely labeled as veterinarian reviewed.
  • We do not preserve a claim simply because it performs well in search or appears on competitor websites.
Urgent safety issue: If you believe an article could cause immediate harm, clearly identify the safety issue in your correction message.

9. Minor edits that are not normally treated as formal corrections

Routine maintenance can improve an article without changing its meaning. These changes usually do not require a public correction notice.

  • Spelling, punctuation, grammar, or formatting fixes.
  • Improved headings or readability.
  • Removal of repetitive wording.
  • Updating a broken link when the underlying claim remains unchanged.
  • Minor image, layout, accessibility, or navigation improvements.

10. Disputed or uncertain claims

A correction request does not automatically prove that the original article is wrong. We review the evidence and may decide that the existing statement is adequately supported.

When credible professional sources genuinely disagree, we may revise the article to describe the uncertainty, range of professional opinion, or limitations of the available evidence rather than presenting one position as certain.

Editorial principle: We prefer transparent uncertainty over false confidence.

11. Source and citation corrections

Readers may report a citation that is broken, outdated, irrelevant, misquoted, or too weak for the claim it supports.

Where possible, we prefer the original regulatory, veterinary, academic, or primary source rather than a secondary article summarizing it.

Replacing a citation should not be used to preserve an unsupported claim. If stronger evidence changes the conclusion, the article should change too.

12. How to submit a correction

You can send a correction to Dog Eat Guide by email or through the contact page. The most useful reports are specific and easy to verify.

What to include

The exact Dog Eat Guide page URL. The sentence, number, or claim you believe is wrong. A short explanation of the problem. A strong supporting source where possible. Why the issue may affect reader safety, if relevant.

Send your correction

Please use a clear subject such as “Content Correction” and include enough detail for us to locate the issue quickly.

@ Email the editorial team info@dogeatguide.com Use the contact page dogeatguide.com/contact/
Dog Eat Guide aims to review correction requests as soon as reasonably practical, but we do not promise a fixed response or resolution time for every submission.

13. Contact and related policies

Questions about this Corrections Policy can be sent to info@dogeatguide.com.

Dog Eat Guide welcomes good-faith corrections from readers, veterinarians, researchers, contributors, brands, and other knowledgeable sources. Corrections are evaluated based on evidence, relevance, and reader safety — not on who submitted them.