How we approach scam-safety guides
ScammersCheck publishes practical education alongside its checker. This page explains the standard we are adopting for guide quality, sourcing, corrections, and limits. Existing articles are being reviewed against this standard.
Useful before promotional
A guide should help a reader make a safer next decision even if they never use our checker. We prioritise clear warning signs, verification steps, reporting options, and limits over generic reassurance.
Primary and official sources
Where an article makes a specific factual, statistical, regulatory, or reporting claim, it should link to an appropriate primary or official source. Common UK reference points include the national Report Fraud service, the National Cyber Security Centre, and the Financial Conduct Authority.
Clear limitations
A scam-risk result is an indicator, not proof that a person, business, number, or website is legitimate or fraudulent. Guides must not promise outcomes, substitute for professional advice, or encourage readers to share sensitive data publicly.
Corrections and review
Readers can request a correction, removal review, or privacy review through our Contact and Corrections route. We will update or clarify content where a substantiated issue is identified.
Our review workflow
Before a guide is published or materially updated, we check that its central advice is understandable without using ScammersCheck, that claims are linked to an appropriate official or primary source, and that examples do not expose real people’s personal information. We separate general safety guidance from product descriptions, label uncertainty, and remove wording that implies a result is a guarantee.
1. Research
Define the reader’s decision and gather current authoritative references.
2. Explain
Use plain language, concrete warning signs, and steps that work without our tool.
3. Recheck
Review links, dates, privacy implications, and correction routes before publication.
What we will not do
We will not manufacture reviews, testimonials, scam reports, success rates, or personal case studies to make a page appear more authoritative. We will not turn a user’s private check into an article, and we will not keep a claim that cannot be supported or fairly qualified.
We will not invent author credentials, regulator relationships, safety guarantees, or case-study results. Where an article needs a qualified specialist review, it will say so rather than imply one occurred.