Corrections Policy

Last updated: May 2026

Pogodex covers a fast-moving game with frequent balance changes, datamined surprises, and active community-driven discoveries. Errors are inevitable. This page describes how we identify, classify, and correct them — transparently — and how readers can report mistakes to us.

How we identify errors

Errors are identified through several channels:

Reader reports. The largest source. Email info [at] pogodex [punto] space with the subject line Correction: [URL].
Internal review. The team re-reads published articles after game updates and after community discussion has surfaced new information.
Post-update audit. After every Niantic balance update or new mechanic release, we scan existing articles for outdated claims (see Stage 5 of How We Work).
Community signal. Significant pushback from competitive PvP players, raid coordinators, or dataminers triggers a re-read.

Severity classification

Not all corrections are equal. We classify them into three levels with different response standards.

Critical errors

An error that would cause a reader to make a materially wrong stardust, raid pass, or ticketed-event decision. Examples:

A raid counter list including a Pokémon that no longer exists in the meta or has been moved out of the relevant role.
A “best moveset” recommendation for a Pokémon whose move pool has just changed.
A Community Day shiny rate quoted incorrectly.
An IV calculator producing wrong CP-at-level math.
A Tier 5 raid time-window quoted incorrectly enough that a reader could miss the boss.

Response standard: Acknowledged within 24 hours of credible report. Fix published within 48 hours. Article header carries a “Correction:” note for at least 30 days.

Substantive errors

An error that misrepresents a fact or recommendation but does not directly cost the reader stardust or money. Examples:

A Pokédex entry with a slightly wrong base stat (corrected by Aria’s audit).
A tier-list ranking that is defensible but no longer accurate after a balance update.
A historical claim about an event (“first appeared in 2021”) that turns out to be off by a year.
An editorial claim about a competitive matchup that does not match the current ladder data.

Response standard: Acknowledged within 3 business days. Fix published within 1 week. Article header carries a “Correction:” note for at least 14 days.

Minor errors

Typos, formatting issues, broken links, mis-pluralized Pokémon names, and similar production-level problems that do not affect editorial accuracy.

Response standard: Fixed when noticed. Not separately documented.

How a correction is published

For Critical and Substantive errors:

The article header carries a yellow “Correction:” notice with the date and a one-sentence description of what was wrong.
The original wrong text is preserved with strikethrough where the correction is in-place; alternatively, the correction is described in the header notice and the body is rewritten.
The “Last updated” timestamp is refreshed.
For Critical corrections, we also publish a brief note in our Corrections Log (see below) with a permanent link to the corrected article.

We do not silently rewrite substantively wrong articles to make ourselves look better in retrospect. The correction history is part of the article.

Corrections Log

Critical corrections are logged in a publicly accessible Corrections Log on the site (linked from the footer when the log has entries). Each entry includes:

The date of the correction.
The article URL.
A one-paragraph description of what was wrong, what is now correct, and how the error happened.
A note on whether process changes have been made to prevent recurrence.

The log is not hidden behind any cookie consent or pay wall. It is part of the editorial record.

Retraction

Where an article is so substantively wrong that correction would not preserve its value, we retract it. A retracted article is replaced by a notice describing what the article had claimed, why it was wrong, and where readers can find the correct information. Retractions are linked from the Corrections Log.

Retractions are rare. We have retracted articles in the past when, for example, a leaked datamining file we cited turned out to be a fabrication, or when a Pokémon GO mechanic we described had been misunderstood at a fundamental level.

How to report an error

The fastest way to report an error is by email to info [at] pogodex [punto] space with:

The article URL.
The specific text or claim you believe is wrong.
The correct version, with sources where you have them.
Your contact information if you would like a follow-up.

We respond to substantive correction reports within 3 business days. We do not respond to bulk SEO-spam reports or to “I disagree with your tier list” complaints unless they include specific factual claims we can verify.

What we will not do

We will not “correct” articles to remove unfavorable analysis under pressure from operators, event organizers, or community personalities. Editorial verdicts are not corrections targets unless they are based on factual error.
We will not retroactively rewrite history to make our predictions look better. Articles that turned out to be wrong stand as a record of what we thought at the time.
We will not delete articles to hide errors. Where an article needs to come down, it is retracted with explanation, not removed.
We will not pay anyone to suppress correction reports. Where a reader has caught a substantive error, the response is the correction, not negotiation.

The honest fail rate

Despite the workflow described in How We Work, we get things wrong. Roughly speaking, we publish 30–50 articles per month and produce in the range of 1–3 substantive corrections per month. Critical corrections (the kind that would cost a reader stardust or money) are rarer, in the range of 2–6 per year. We track this internally and publish the figures annually as part of our editorial transparency.

Related pages: Editorial Standards · How We Work · Sources & Citations · Contact Us · Disclaimer