How to report factual and calculator errors, and how we evaluate revisions.
Effective: October 28, 2026
Why this corrections policy exists
How to Calculate publishes calculators and explanatory guides across subjects with different kinds of evidence and different consequences when a number is wrong. Even a well-presented page can include a typo, a mistaken example, an outdated assumption, a broken form, or an interpretation that goes beyond what the available data supports. This policy describes how readers can report concerns and how we aim to assess and address them.
We want readers to understand the difference between a correction, a routine update, and a limitation that has to remain part of the explanation. A small wording improvement is not the same as fixing a mathematical formula that produces an incorrect result. When we discover a significant issue, we aim to prioritize the effect it may have on people using the page.
This document sets out our approach rather than guaranteeing a particular service level, continuous monitoring, or that all historical content has already been independently reviewed. We recognize that reviews and corrections are ongoing work.
What readers can report
We welcome specific reports of arithmetic errors, broken buttons, invalid results, inconsistent units, outdated fees, incorrect links, confusing input labels, accessibility barriers, and unsourced or misleading factual statements. A broken calculator may fail to display a result, produce an error in a browser, accept impossible inputs, or show a plausible number based on the wrong rule.
Readers may also report a text explanation that conflicts with the on-page calculator. For example, the article may describe a grade conversion that differs from the code, or it may call an estimate exact even though important fees are not included. Both the article and its interactive component need to tell the same story.
Not every disagreement is an error. An estimate may reasonably differ from a later invoice because its assumptions, rates, or included charges differ. Nevertheless, if those assumptions are not explained, the page may need clarification. The purpose of the review is to help readers understand the result accurately.
How to submit a helpful correction report
Use our Contact page and identify the exact URL of the article or calculator. Include a short description of the problem and, for numerical issues, the inputs you entered and the result you received. If you know the expected result, explain how you calculated it. You may refer to an official reference or published methodology that supports the proposed correction.
For browser problems, it can help to mention whether you used a phone or computer, the browser, and whether the issue happened before or after pressing Calculate, Try an Example, or Reset. Do not send passwords, payment-card numbers, sensitive medical records, private account details, or identifying information that is unnecessary for diagnosing a generic calculation issue.
A clear, reproducible example is more useful than a broad claim that a calculator is broken. However, you do not need professional credentials to raise a concern. If a page is unclear, difficult to use, or fails for your circumstances, we want to know even when you cannot identify the technical cause.
How concerns are assessed
We aim to establish what the page actually says and does before making a change. For a numerical issue, we compare the displayed formula with the calculation performed by the script and with an independent worked example. We also check whether inputs are correctly labeled and whether rounding, conversion, or omitted assumptions explain a difference.
When the report concerns a rule, fee schedule, or medical or scientific claim, the next step is to identify an appropriate primary source. The current schedule from an organization or the applicable professional standard generally carries more weight than a generic webpage repeating a rule without attribution. We also look for scope: location, edition, eligibility, date, or the particular population for which a model was developed.
Sometimes a report reveals an issue that is larger than one sentence. The tool, title, example, FAQ, and internal links may all need adjustment to avoid repeating the same misconception. In other cases, the accurate response is to state that available evidence does not support a definitive answer.
Prioritizing corrections by risk
We give higher priority to problems that can lead to harmful decisions or fundamentally incorrect outputs. An inaccurate clinical interpretation, incorrect engineering constraint, or fee model that hides substantial charges can be more consequential than awkward wording or a cosmetic spacing issue.
Technical failures also deserve attention when they prevent a calculator from working. Examples include a JavaScript syntax error, division by zero, removal of a valid zero score, or an unvalidated value that results in NaN or Infinity. A visible calculator is not necessarily a functioning calculator, so reviews should consider rendered code and user interaction where feasible.
Search traffic alone is not the only priority. A less-visited page can still need immediate attention if it encourages unsafe use. At the same time, heavily used pages with an identified error may affect more readers. The seriousness of the issue, available evidence, and how readily it can be corrected all influence the order of work.
Corrections versus routine updates
A correction fixes information that was wrong, misleading, or technically defective. That may involve changing a formula, removing a disputed diagnostic category, correcting a worked example, replacing an erroneous link, or revising a statement that incorrectly describes the tool’s capabilities.
A routine update reflects information that has changed without necessarily making the earlier statement inaccurate at the time of publication. Examples include a new fee schedule, a revised technical guideline, an updated organization webpage, or a renamed service. The relevant date and version may matter when readers compare results.
An editorial improvement can also occur without either an error or a time-sensitive change. We may split a long paragraph, clarify a definition, improve keyboard labels, add source context, or strengthen related links. All three kinds of changes are useful, but they should not be confused with independent certification of the entire article.
How we handle significant errors
If an issue could materially mislead a reader, we aim to correct or clearly qualify the affected content. A warning may be appropriate while a more complete calculator replacement is prepared. When a numerical model cannot produce a defensible result with the available inputs, we may remove the unsupported interpretation or convert the tool into a transparent manual estimator.
We do not assume that fixing a single code line resolves every related issue. The article’s examples, descriptive headings, FAQs, and surrounding explanations also need review. If the result is suitable only for educational use, the page should say so near the calculation rather than relying solely on a generic disclaimer elsewhere on the site.
We aim to avoid retaining an old table or obsolete calculation without clear context that it is historical. We also try to avoid presenting partial corrections as proof of complete accuracy. Additional testing or professional verification may still be needed.
Transparency about dates and review status
WordPress may display a publication date, an updated date, or neither, depending on the page and theme. A modified date indicates that the page was changed; it is not a guarantee that every claim was checked against every available official source that day. A technical styling correction, for example, can update a page timestamp without changing its research basis.
We may add a notice or explanation when a major change affects how readers should interpret results. We do not commit to maintaining a public line-by-line correction log for every change, and minor spelling or formatting edits may not receive a separate notice. The scale of disclosure should reflect the importance of the correction.
For rules and prices that change often, readers should check current primary sources, even if the article is recently updated. We do not claim real-time synchronization with all third-party systems, and many calculators operate without an external live data feed.
Handling sources and disagreements
When two references disagree, it may be because they cover different time periods, regions, test methods, or technical definitions. A published grade conversion can differ from an institution’s internal scale; a provider’s fee can depend on account type; and a scientific threshold can change between guideline editions.
We aim to resolve these differences by identifying the applicable authority and describing any remaining uncertainty. A more recent source is not always relevant to an older historical example, while a general educational source may not override a current rule governing a specific transaction.
We will not knowingly add fabricated citations, invented credentials, or unverifiable stories to resolve a challenge. If we lack enough information to establish a reliable conclusion, we should acknowledge that limitation instead of presenting speculation as a settled fact. A reported issue can prompt us to remove unsupported detail entirely.
Calculator fixes and browser checks
When a calculator is modified, we aim to verify that the saved content appears in the rendered page and that its JavaScript remains syntactically valid after the publishing system processes it. We also look for problems caused by character encoding, missing controls, unexpected field values, and contradictory explanatory text.
Where feasible, interaction checks should exercise the main calculation, example data, Reset behavior, invalid fields, and different screen widths. However, a structural or syntax check is not the same as a complete live-browser test. We distinguish what has been verified from what still needs observation.
We also consider accessibility-related reports, such as unlabeled fields, controls inaccessible by keyboard, insufficiently visible feedback, and long content that overflows a mobile screen. We aim to make useful fixes, but we do not warrant compliance with every accessibility standard or compatibility with every assistive device.
What happens after you send feedback
We may request clarification if the report does not contain enough information to reproduce the problem. If it is supported by evidence, a correction may involve updating an article, changing the calculator, adding a link, altering a disclaimer, or withdrawing an unsupportable claim. We also may leave the page unchanged if the proposed alternative does not fit the formula or evidence.
We cannot promise an individual reply or a fixed correction deadline for every report. If a concern involves immediate physical safety, medical decisions, or a financial deadline, do not wait for a website response. Consult the responsible professional, provider, or official authority directly.
Readers can review the standards behind our content in the Editorial Policy and our technical approach in Calculator Methodology & Accuracy Standards. Our Disclaimer and Terms and Conditions describe additional website-use limitations. Thank you for helping identify issues and improve the clarity of the guides.