Editorial policy

Our goal is simple: help a real person make a safer decision. This page explains how we research, write, and maintain content - and the limits of what we can and can't do.

How we select sources

We prioritise official and authoritative sources - consumer-protection and law-enforcement agencies, national cybercrime bodies, and the official security pages of the platforms and brands involved. We use public forums only to spot emerging patterns, never as primary proof. Where we cite a source, it's recorded with a structured source ID and an external link that carries a tracking parameter so we can measure usefulness.

Our source hierarchy

1. Official sources (highest weight): government, regulator, and law-enforcement publications (e.g. FTC, FBI IC3, CISA, Action Fraud, NCSC, Scamwatch, CAFC, ScamShield, CERT-In, RBI, CFPB) and the official security pages of the brands and platforms involved.
2. Reputable cybersecurity research: vendor threat-intelligence and recognised security researchers, used as supporting evidence and labelled as such.
3. Public pattern observations: forums and social posts, used only to notice emerging patterns - never as proof, and always marked anecdotal.

Each source carries a reliability label (High / Medium / Low) on our sources page.

Fact-checking process

Facts and figures are checked against the most authoritative source we can find, and we prefer to paraphrase and link out rather than restate exact numbers. Where sources disagree or a claim can't be supported, we soften or remove it. We don't present a forum or social-media story as a verified fact.

Official data vs research vs user reports vs predictions

We keep four kinds of information clearly separated so you can weigh them yourself:

• Confirmed official data - statements and statistics from official bodies.
• Cybersecurity research - findings from reputable security organisations, treated as supporting.
• User-reported patterns - what people describe publicly, clearly marked anecdotal.
• Predictions - our informed forecasts, explicitly labelled as opinion, not fact (see future scams).

How we sanitise scam examples

Every example is illustrative and sanitised. We never publish live scam links, real phone numbers, emails, wallet addresses, tracking IDs, document numbers, or anyone's personal details. In their place we use clear placeholders such as [fake-link removed], [phone number removed], and [code removed]. Examples are labelled as examples so no one mistakes them for a real message.

How we handle corrections

If something is inaccurate or out of date, we want to fix it. You can flag issues via our contact page or the report a broken link form. Substantive corrections update the page and its review date.

How pages are reviewed

Pages carry a last-reviewed date and are revisited as scams evolve and sources change. Guidance is written to be calm, practical, and channel-appropriate, and to point you to official reporting routes for your country.

What we do not collect

• We do not store the raw messages you check.
• We do not send message text, links, emails, phone numbers, codes, card, or bank details to analytics.
• We do not ask for or need your personal information to use the checker.

See our privacy summary for details.

Limitations and disclaimers

This site provides general safety information, not legal, financial, or cybersecurity incident-response advice. We can't detect every scam, and we never guarantee ranking, traffic, recovery of lost funds, or 100% accuracy. When in doubt, verify through official channels and report to your local authority.