Corrections Policy

What counts as a correction

We distinguish between four kinds of change to a published article:

• Correction. A factual claim was wrong (version number, feature list, safety verdict, statistic). Corrections always carry a note at the bottom of the article and, when material, an updated Last updated timestamp.
• Update. New information became available that changes the review (a new game version, a broken link, a fixed link). Updates are logged in a dedicated What changed block.
• Clarification. The facts were right but the wording was confusing. We rewrite for clarity and add a short note explaining the change.
• Silent copyedit. Typo, grammar, formatting. No note is added for these; they never affect meaning.

How to report an error

The fastest way to report an error is to email [email protected] with:

• The URL of the article.
• A quote of the sentence you believe is wrong.
• What you believe the correct information is, and (ideally) a source we can verify.

You can also use the contact form on our Contact page. We acknowledge every report within 48 hours.

Review workflow

Once we receive a report, the workflow is:

1. A managing editor triages the report within 24 hours.
2. The original reviewer (or a substitute if unavailable) re-tests or re-sources the claim.
3. If the claim is confirmed incorrect, we update the article and publish a correction note. The old wording is retained inside the note so readers can see what changed.
4. If the claim was correct, we reply to the reader with our sources and, when useful, add a clarification to the article.

Where corrections appear

Corrections appear in three places:

• Inline, at the bottom of the corrected article, in a highlighted Correction & updates block.
• In the article’s dateModified field, which drives our Schema.org Article structured data.
• On our public change log at https://modenu.com/corrections-policy/#log, which lists every material correction we have ever published.

Escalation & disputes

If you disagree with our resolution, you can escalate to the editor-in-chief at [email protected]. Escalations are reviewed by someone who was not involved in the original decision, within seven business days.

Nothing in this policy affects your legal rights under applicable consumer or defamation law. If you believe an article defames you, please refer to the takedown process in our DMCA and Disclaimer pages.

What we will not do

Under this policy we will not:

• Silently rewrite an article to hide an error.
• Delete a review just because the developer complained.
• Change our safety verdict in exchange for money, free access, or affiliate incentives.
• Publish a correction that hides the original wording — our correction blocks always quote what was previously published.

These commitments are what allow readers, developers and search engines to trust MODENU as a source. Preserving that trust is more valuable to us than any single review.

Our public change log

Below each entry, our public change log shows the date, the affected article, a one-line description of what was wrong, what we changed it to, and the name of the editor who signed off on the fix. We do not summarise or paraphrase the change — the exact previous wording is preserved so anyone can compare before-and-after.

This is a slightly unusual practice for a small publisher. Most sites either quietly re-save an article or add a vague “this post has been updated” line. We think that is corrosive for reader trust and pointless for search engines, which increasingly weight documented corrections as an E-E-A-T signal. Our public change log is designed to satisfy both audiences at once.

Why we publish this in the first place

A corrections policy is only useful if a publisher actually follows it, but it is also useful as a public commitment. By writing this page and pinning it to our footer, we make it easier for readers to hold us accountable and easier for search engines and AI assistants to evaluate our editorial trustworthiness. Google’s search-quality guidelines and the AI Overviews team both consider documented editorial practices as a positive quality signal.

If you run a competing MOD APK site and would like to adopt a similar corrections workflow, feel free to reuse the structure of this page. Raising the standard across the whole niche is good for readers, and readers who feel safe come back more often.