Accuracy matters to us, and getting things wrong undermines the whole point of an education-first publication. This page explains how we correct errors, how we treat live market data, and how you can flag something that looks off.
Our commitment to accuracy
Analyzing Market exists to make crypto information clear and correct. When we make a mistake, we fix it promptly and, where the change is significant, we note that a correction has been made. We would rather be transparent about an error than quietly paper over it — durable trust is built on honesty, not on pretending to be infallible. Our broader standards are set out in our editorial policy and ethics policy.
How to report an error
If you spot something that looks wrong, please tell us through our contact page. To help us act quickly, include the URL of the page in question and a clear description of what you believe is incorrect and why. The more specific you can be, the faster we can check it against our sources and put it right.
What counts as a correction vs an update
Not every change to a page is a correction. A correction fixes something that was inaccurate at the time of publishing — a wrong figure, a mislabelled metric, a factual error. An update, by contrast, reflects new information or evolving context: a definition that has grown, an example that has been refreshed, or a guide expanded with more detail. Both improve the site, but only the first implies that something was previously wrong, and we treat them accordingly.
Types of correction
We group corrections by how much they matter to a reader’s understanding:
- Minor corrections — typos, broken links, formatting and small wording fixes that do not change meaning. These are simply put right.
- Substantive corrections — changes to facts, figures or explanations that could affect how a reader understands the topic. For these, we note that a meaningful correction has been made.
How we handle corrections
When a possible error is reported, we check it against our sources and our methodology before changing anything. If it is a genuine error, we correct it. If the change is substantive, we make clear that the page has been corrected rather than silently editing it. If it turns out the page was right, we will explain why, because a clear “no, and here’s the reasoning” is as useful as a fix.
Our correction workflow
In general terms, the process runs the same way every time: we receive a report, confirm exactly which page and claim are involved, verify it against the relevant data provider or reference, decide whether it is a correction or an update, apply the change, and note significant corrections transparently. We describe the workflow in principle rather than promising a fixed turnaround, because some checks are quick and others require careful verification — but every credible report is reviewed.
Live market data
Much of what you see on our market pages is live data aggregated from third-party providers and cached for performance rather than streamed tick by tick. Because of that cache cycle, you may occasionally notice a short-term discrepancy between our figures and another site refreshing at a different moment. These timing differences are a normal feature of cached data, not editorial errors, and they typically resolve on the next refresh.
How we treat market-data discrepancies
When a reported “error” turns out to be a momentary gap between cache cycles, we treat it as expected behaviour rather than a correction, and our methodology explains how each metric is sourced and defined. If, on the other hand, a number is genuinely mislabelled or mis-calculated on our side, that is a real correction and we fix it. The distinction matters: confusing normal data latency with an editorial mistake would only muddy what a correction actually means. You can always cross-check figures on the live markets pages.
Why corrections matter for trust
An honest corrections policy is not an admission of weakness — it is the backbone of credibility. Publications that never appear to err are usually the ones hiding their mistakes. By fixing errors openly and explaining our reasoning, we let readers hold us accountable, which is exactly the relationship our editorial policy and ethics policy are designed to support. Accuracy is ultimately a shared effort, and reader reports are a big part of how we keep the site reliable.
How to reach us
You can report a correction through our contact page, or email the team directly at editorial@analyzingmarket.com. Please include the page URL and a clear description of the issue so we can investigate it properly. Thank you for helping us keep Analyzing Market accurate.