How errors are fixed

Fixed in place, with a date

When a mistake is confirmed, the page is corrected where it stands and a note is added saying what was wrong and when it was changed. The old wording is not quietly removed and the page is not rewritten to look as if the error never existed.

This matters most on figures. A leverage cap, a margin example or a platform list that turns out to be wrong is corrected openly, because a reader who saw the earlier version deserves to know it moved.

What Counts as an Error Worth Logging

An error worth logging is a statement on the page that is factually wrong about the instrument, the arithmetic, or the broker's regulatory position. A wrong pip value for gold, a margin figure that does not follow from the stated leverage, or a regulator named for FxPro that does not match the licensing caveat are all loggable. A phrasing you would have written differently is not. The test is simple: could a reader act on this sentence and end up with a wrong number or a wrong expectation about who supervises the broker? If yes, it is an error and it goes in the log.

An error worth logging is one that changes a decision, not one that changes the mood of a sentence. If a page says one pip on XAU/USD is 0.01 and a reader sizes a 0.10-lot position from that, the number is load-bearing and any mistake in it is an error. If a page describes gold as volatile and a reader disagrees, that is a matter of taste. We log mistakes in the figures a trader uses to calculate margin, position size or cost, and mistakes in the regulator caveat that tells a Nigerian reader where to verify a licence.

An error worth logging is also a claim we cannot stand behind, even if it happens to be accurate. A spread figure with no source, a minimum deposit stated as a number when the broker's own terms govern it, or a leverage ratio that conflicts with the offshore entity's terms all qualify, because a reader cannot check them and we cannot defend them. The corrections page exists for these too. Being right by accident is not the standard here; being checkable is. That is why the log includes removals of unsupported numbers alongside outright factual mistakes.

Errors of omission count when the missing fact would mislead. A page that lists leverage without saying it is a cap, not a target, leaves a reader with a false picture of risk even though every sentence on the page is technically true. We treat that as loggable because the reader's takeaway is wrong. The same applies to a funding page that names cards and bank transfer but never mentions that the entity serving Nigeria is FxPro Markets Direct Costa Rica Latam SRL. The omission changes what the reader believes about their protection, so it belongs in the log.

A change is not always an error

If a broker has simply changed its terms since the page was checked, that is a re-check, not a correction. The page is updated to the new position and the date of the re-check is recorded, without pretending the earlier version was mistaken.

The distinction is kept because it protects trust in both directions. Real errors get a correction note; ordinary changes get a re-check note; and a reader can tell which one they are looking at.

How to report one

Send the page address and the sentence in question to [email protected]. If the broker's own document contradicts the page, include the document and the date it was read, because that is what the check will be measured against.

Reports are read in the order they arrive. A report that names a specific page and a specific claim is far easier to act on than a general complaint, and it is the kind that gets resolved.

Why the Log Stays Public

The log stays public because a reader cannot judge a reference page without knowing how often it has been wrong and how quickly it was fixed. A page with no visible history asks for trust it has not earned. A page with a dated list of its own mistakes lets a reader weigh the site the way they would weigh any other source: by its record. That is the whole argument for publishing the log rather than keeping it in an internal tracker where only the writers see it. Secrecy would protect our reputation at the reader's expense.

The log stays public because the facts on these pages are load-bearing for money. A Nigerian reader who funds an account by bank transfer, sizes a 0.10-lot gold position and calculates margin from a figure on this site is exposed if that figure was wrong and quietly replaced. A silent edit leaves them holding a decision built on a number that no longer appears anywhere. A public correction tells them the number changed and what it changed to, which is the minimum a reader needs to re-check a position or a plan they made from the old page.

The log stays public because the alternative is a page that looks cleaner than it is. Every reference site makes mistakes; the ones that hide them are not more accurate, they are just less honest about being inaccurate. Publishing the record also keeps the writing honest in a practical way: knowing that a wrong pip value will be listed in public is a real incentive to check the pip value before publishing. The log is not a punishment for the writer. It is the reason the page gets read twice before it goes live.

The log stays public because readers in Nigeria have limited ways to verify claims about an offshore broker. The regulator caveat points them to the SEC Nigeria register of capital market operators, and the log is the companion to that: it shows what this site has claimed, when it claimed it, and what it changed. A reader who wants to check whether a leverage statement was ever different can look. That kind of check is only possible if the history is out in the open, which is why the log is not behind a login or an email form.

The Difference Between a Correction and an Update

A correction fixes something that was wrong; an update changes something that was right when written but is no longer current. If a page said one pip on gold is 0.10 and it should have been 0.01, that is a correction, because the original sentence was never true. If a page described the entity serving Nigeria as one company and the broker later restructured so a different entity serves the region, the earlier sentence was accurate at the time and is now out of date. That is an update, and it is marked differently so a reader can tell the two apart.

A correction implies the earlier version misled someone; an update does not. That distinction matters to a reader who acted on the old page. If you sized a position from a figure that was simply wrong, you were misled and the log should say so plainly. If you read a page that was correct on the day and the underlying facts later moved, you were not misled, you were early. Marking the two the same way would blur that, and the log is only useful if a reader can tell whether the page they remember was wrong or merely old.

A correction is dated to the day the wrong text stopped being served; an update is dated to the day the underlying fact changed, where that day is known, and to the day we reflected it where it is not. The distinction is not cosmetic. It tells a reader how long a stale-but-once-true statement sat on the page before we caught up, which is a fair question to ask of any reference site. A correction has no such gap to explain, because the sentence was wrong from the start. The log shows the difference in how each line is worded.

A correction and an update can sit on the same page on the same day and still be logged as two lines. If a review finds both a wrong pip value and a change in the regulator caveat, the wrong value is corrected and the caveat is updated, and the reader sees two entries rather than one merged note. Keeping them separate means each line can be judged on its own. A merged line would force a reader to work out which half of the sentence was an error and which half was a change in the world, and that is exactly the work the log should do for them.

When a Source Itself Changes Silently

When a source changes silently, we treat our page as out of date from the moment the source moved, not from the moment we noticed, and the log says so. A broker's terms page can be rewritten without a changelog, a regulator's register can be updated without announcement, and a leverage statement can shift between what one review reports and what the entity's own terms say. Our page is then describing a world that no longer exists. The correction line states the fact that moved, the date we found it, and the fact that the source gave no notice.

When a source changes silently, the honest record names the source and the conflict rather than picking a side. The leverage position for Nigeria is the clearest case on this site: the offshore entity's terms are cited as up to 1:200, while one review cited 1:30 and 1:20 caps, and the two do not agree. We do not resolve that by choosing the more convenient number. The page states the conflict, states that it was not verified at review, and treats leverage as a cap rather than a setting to aim at. The log records any change to that wording.

When a source changes silently, we do not delete the old statement from the history to make the page look consistent. The old wording stays in the log with the date it was served, even where it now reads as wrong. Removing it would erase the fact that readers were given it, and a reader who remembers the old version would have no way to confirm what they read. The log is the only place that memory survives, which is why a silent change at the source produces a visible change in our history rather than a quiet edit.

When a source changes silently, the response is to reduce what we claim, not to add new claims to cover the gap. If a figure cannot be confirmed against the source at review, it is described in terms of what it depends on rather than stated as a number, and the log records the removal. A spread, a commission, a swap or a minimum deposit that we cannot stand behind is written as something that varies by account and entity, and the correction line says that a previously stated figure was withdrawn. Fewer numbers, better sourced, is the rule when a source goes quiet.

The Three Kinds of Change and How Each Is Marked

Error, update and clarification are marked as three separate labels on every history line, and the label is the first thing a reader sees. An error line is marked as an error and quotes both the wrong text and the corrected text. An update line is marked as an update and says what changed in the world, not what changed in our writing. A clarification line is marked as a clarification and quotes the original wording beside the clearer wording, so a reader can see that nothing factual moved and only the phrasing did. The three labels are never used interchangeably.

An error line carries the most detail because it has the most to answer for. It shows the old figure, the new figure, the date the wrong version was served and the date the fix went live. An update line is lighter: it states the fact that changed and the date it changed, and leaves out the old wording unless the wording itself is what a reader might remember. A clarification line is lighter still, because nothing a reader relied on was wrong. The weight of each entry matches what the reader needs to re-check.

A clarification is marked separately because it is the most common change and the least serious, and lumping it with errors would make the log unreadable. If a sentence about margin on a 0.10-lot gold position is rewritten to say the same thing in fewer words, that is a clarification, and a reader who saw the old sentence does not need to revisit any decision. Marking it as an error would send that reader back to re-check a position for no reason. The label is there to tell them whether they need to act.

The three labels are applied by whoever makes the change, and the label is reviewed before it publishes, because mislabelling is itself an error. An update dressed up as a clarification hides the fact that a once-true statement went stale. A clarification dressed up as an error overstates the problem and erodes trust in the log. The rule is that the label describes what happened to the reader's understanding, not how embarrassed we are. If a reader's takeaway was wrong, it is an error, whatever the cause.

How a Reader Can Check the History of a Page

A reader checks the history by opening the page they are reading and looking for its dated change lines, which sit with the page rather than in a separate archive. Each line names what changed, quotes the old text, and carries the date the change went live. Reading the lines in order gives the page's full record from first publication to now. A reader who wants to know whether a specific figure has moved looks for that figure in the lines. If it does not appear, the figure has not changed since the page was published.

A reader checks the history against the source when a line names one. If a correction says the regulator caveat was changed, the reader can go to the SEC Nigeria register of capital market operators and confirm for themselves what the caveat should say. If a line records a conflict over leverage, the reader can see that the page states the conflict rather than resolving it, and can weigh the page accordingly. Checking the history is not just reading our account of ourselves; it is using the log to find the claims worth verifying independently.

A reader checks the history of a figure they relied on by matching the date they read the page to the dated lines around it. If you read the page in a month with no correction lines, the text you saw is the text that was served then, unchanged. If a line falls between then and now, that line tells you what moved. This is why the lines are dated to the day the change went live rather than to the day the problem was found: the reader's question is always about what was on the page when they read it.

A reader checks the history and finds nothing, and that is a result too. A page with no correction lines is a page that has not been corrected since publication, which is a claim a reader can hold us to. It is not a guarantee that the page is right, and it should not be read as one. It means the record is empty so far, and the record will be updated the same day any error is found and fixed. An empty history is a starting position, not a certificate, and the page is written so that a reader can tell the difference.

How a Correction Is Recorded and Dated

A correction is recorded as a dated line in the page's history, written at the moment the fix goes live, not at the moment someone notices the problem. The line names the page, the sentence or figure that changed, the old value and the new one, and the date the corrected version became visible to readers. The date is the publication date of the corrected page, so a reader comparing two versions can tell exactly when the change took effect. Nothing is backdated to make a gap look smaller than it was.

A correction is dated by the day the corrected text is served, and the original date is kept beside it. A page first published in March and corrected in June shows both dates, with the correction line sitting under the June date. That way the record answers two questions at once: when the reader's version was written, and when the version before it stopped being true. If a correction takes several days to draft and verify, the log shows the day it went live, and the internal note of when it was first flagged stays internal.

A correction is recorded in the same place as the page it fixes, so a reader never has to hunt for it. The line sits with the page history, in plain text, with the old figure quoted rather than described. If the margin example for a 0.10-lot gold position was wrong, the line quotes the wrong figure and the corrected one, not the words 'margin example amended'. Quoting both numbers is what makes the record useful to someone who read the earlier version and sized a trade from it. Vague correction notes defeat the purpose.

A correction is dated and recorded even when nobody reported it. Most of the entries in this log will come from our own review, not from reader reports, and they carry the same date and the same detail as a reported one. The reader-facing record does not distinguish between a fix prompted by an email and a fix found internally, because the reader only needs to know what changed and when. What stays internal is the name of whoever raised it, which is not part of the public record and is not needed to judge whether the fix is right.

Who Decides, and in What Time

The decision to log a change sits with the person who maintains the page, and it is made before the corrected text is published, not after. That ordering matters: the log line is drafted alongside the fix, so the page and its history go live together and there is no window where a corrected page has no record of the correction. No single outside party approves each line, but the label and the quoted old text are checked against the page history before publishing. A correction that cannot be described accurately in the log is a correction that is not ready to publish.

The time to decide depends on what is at stake in the sentence, and the shortest clock applies to figures a reader could trade on. A wrong pip value, a margin example that does not follow from the stated leverage, or a regulator caveat that misstates who licenses the broker are treated as urgent and are fixed and logged as soon as they are confirmed, ahead of any other work on the page. Wording that misleads without carrying a number is fixed in the next review pass rather than immediately. The clock is set by the reader's exposure, not by how easy the fix is.

The decision is not deferred to a source's own timetable. If a broker's terms change and the source is slow to reflect it, or reflects it without notice, we do not wait for the source to announce the change before we log ours. We log what we changed on our page and when, and we say that the source moved. The log records our page's history, not the source's. That distinction keeps the record honest when a source quietly revises a page and leaves everyone who cited the old version looking wrong without explanation.

The time to decide is short, but the time to verify is not skipped. A reported error is checked against the source before anything is logged, because a log full of entries that were themselves wrong is worse than no log. If verification takes longer than the fix, the fix waits. The one exception is a figure that is plainly wrong on its face, such as a pip value for gold stated as anything other than 0.01, which is corrected and logged immediately and verified afterwards. Confirming the obvious should not delay protecting the reader.

Why Nothing Is Deleted From the Record

Nothing is deleted because a reader who acted on an old version needs to be able to find it again. If a margin figure for a 0.10-lot gold position appeared on the page in April and was wrong, a reader who sized a trade in April needs the April text to still exist somewhere they can reach. Deleting it protects the page's appearance and strands the reader. Keeping it costs us a visible mistake and gives the reader a fair account of what they were told. The log is built on that trade-off, deliberately.

Nothing is deleted because deletion is indistinguishable from a cover-up, even when the motive is innocent. A page that removes an old sentence and says nothing looks the same as a page that removes it to hide something, and a reader has no way to tell which happened. Keeping the old text in the history removes the ambiguity entirely. The record shows the sentence, the date and the reason it changed. That is a stronger position than a clean page with no trail, and it is the only position that survives a reader comparing notes with someone who read the earlier version.

Nothing is deleted because the history is what makes the current page checkable. A reader who wants to know whether a leverage statement has been stable, or whether the regulator caveat has always pointed to the SEC Nigeria register, can only answer that if the earlier versions still exist. A page that overwrites itself gives that reader nothing to compare against, and a claim that has never changed is indistinguishable from a claim that changed last week and was tidied up. The history turns the current text from an assertion into something a reader can audit.

Nothing is deleted, but not everything is kept at full length. Superseded text stays in the history in the form it was served, while the live page carries only the current version plus the correction lines. That keeps the reading experience clean without losing the trail. The one thing we do not do is rewrite the old text to match the new one, because a history that has been edited to agree with the present is not a history. What was served stays as served, wrong figures included.