Corrections Policy
Last updated: May 2026 · Author: Eleanor B., Lead Editor
Every editorial publication makes mistakes. The difference between a trustworthy publication and an untrustworthy one is what happens after the mistake is discovered. This page describes how Explore Your Garden handles factual errors, outdated information, and editorial misjudgments. It is the public commitment that holds us to a clear standard.
1. The four types of post-publication change
We distinguish carefully between four kinds of changes we may make to a published article. Each is treated differently.
| Type | When it applies | How it is marked |
|---|---|---|
| Correction | A factual claim was wrong (incorrect plant ID, wrong sowing date, incorrect cultivar attribution) | “Correction” note at the bottom with date and original error |
| Update | New information emerged (new pest pressure, cultivar discontinuation, climate-shift implications) | “Update” note dated, with a summary of what is new |
| Clarification | The original was technically accurate but reasonably misread | “Clarification” note explaining what was reasonably misread and why |
| Retraction | The article is fundamentally unsound and cannot be saved by correction (e.g., a foraging guide with incorrect identification) | Visible retraction notice replacing the article, with explanation |
2. Corrections in detail
A correction is the appropriate response when an article contains a verifiably wrong factual claim. Examples in gardening writing include: a USDA hardiness zone misstated, a sowing date off by weeks, a plant attributed to the wrong genus, a cultivar described as available when it has been discontinued, a soil pH range stated incorrectly.
When we make a correction:
- We fix the error in the article body.
- We add a “Correction” note at the bottom of the article with the date, the original incorrect text, and the corrected version.
- If the error materially affected the article’s practical advice, we say so explicitly.
What we do not do: silently revise published material. Once an article has been read by a real reader, that reader is entitled to know if the article they read has been changed.
3. Updates in detail
An update is the appropriate response when something happens after publication that changes the picture, but the original article was correct as published. Gardening examples: a new pest has emerged in a region we covered; a recommended cultivar has been removed from production; a climate-shift effect has changed best-practice timing.
Updates are dated and summarized in a clearly marked note. We do not rewrite the original article to incorporate new information silently; the historical record of what we said when we said it remains intact.
4. Clarifications in detail
A clarification is the appropriate response when an article was technically accurate but used wording that a reasonable reader could misinterpret. This is rare but real. The clarification note explains the misreading and offers a corrected wording.
We use this category sparingly. Most apparent clarifications are actually corrections (the original was wrong) or refusals to clarify (the original was clear and the misreading is the reader’s). We try not to soften this distinction.
5. Retractions — especially for safety-critical content
A retraction is the most serious response and is reserved for articles whose factual or analytical foundations have collapsed beyond repair. We commit to retracting any article that, on review, contains errors that could materially harm a reader — particularly in plant identification, foraging, and toxicity contexts.
Retracted articles do not vanish from the site. The URL continues to serve the retraction notice, so that any link from elsewhere on the web reaches a clear explanation rather than a 404.
6. How to submit a correction request
If you have spotted an error, we want to know about it. Please email info [at] exploreyourgarden [punto] site with the subject line Correction request: [URL] and include:
- The full URL of the article in question.
- The specific text you believe is incorrect.
- What you believe the correct version should be.
- A source for the correct version, if available.
Most correction requests we receive are well-founded, and we are grateful for them. A small number are based on misreadings of the article, and we will explain politely why we are not making the change. A very rare few are bad-faith attempts to alter the editorial record on behalf of an interested party; we recognize these and do not act on them.
7. Timing
We aim to respond to correction requests within 48 business hours. Simple corrections (date errors, name spellings, numerical facts) are typically made within the same response. More substantive corrections that require us to consult sources or rethink an argument may take a few additional days, and we will tell you so.
Safety-critical corrections (plant ID, toxicity, foraging) are treated with priority and are typically acted on within 24 hours of receipt of credible information.
8. Corrections to images, captions, and metadata
The same standards apply to image captions, alt-text, social-media share metadata, and any other text we have published. If a caption is wrong — for example, a photograph of one cultivar misidentified as another — we correct it the same way we correct article body text.
9. The internal correction log
We maintain an internal log of every correction, update, clarification, and retraction we have issued. The log is not currently published in full, but the per-article notes at the bottom of each piece make our corrections public on the article level. We may consider publishing aggregate statistics in a future annual transparency report.
10. Why this matters
Gardening readers act on what we publish. They sow seeds on the dates we recommend; they prune at the times we suggest; they identify wild plants from our descriptions. The willingness to correct visibly — rather than silently scrub the record — is the most concrete form that reader trust takes. It is what allows our writing to be useful: not the absence of mistakes, but the consistent acknowledgment of them.
For the broader editorial principles that govern our approach, read our Editorial Standards. For our practice of citing sources, read our Sources & Citations Policy. For our process from idea to publication, read How We Work.
Related pages: Editorial Standards · Sources & Citations · How We Test · How We Work · Contact Us