Corrections and complaints

A site that publishes its confidence levels has to be correctable, or the confidence levels are decoration. A demonstrated error is worth more to BakeHQ than a new page, because it usually reveals a fault in how something was reasoned about rather than a single wrong sentence.

• A cited source does not say what BakeHQ claims it says. Most citations here are at “citation checked” rather than “passage verified”, and that gap is where an error would hide.
• A troubleshooting diagnosis reached “no cause matched”. That outcome means the causal model has a gap. What actually happened in your kitchen is exactly the missing piece.
• A claim is stated more confidently than the evidence supports, or sits at the wrong tier.
• A regional term is wrong, missing, or treated as equivalent when it is not.
• A calculator gives a result you can show is wrong, or its stated assumptions do not match what it actually does.

Write to hello@hekno.co.uk with the page address, the passage concerned, and what you believe is correct. A source is welcome and not required — “this contradicts what I see every time I bake it” is useful evidence about a claim BakeHQ may have placed too high on the ladder.

• Substantive corrections are made as soon as they are verified.
• Where a claim turns out to be less supported than stated, it is moved down the evidence ladder rather than deleted — a claim recorded as unsupported is findable by the next person searching for it.
• Where a source is contradicted on checking, its record is kept and marked as such rather than removed. Provenance includes the things that did not work out.
• Where a fault’s causal model is missing a cause, the cause and its discriminating observations are added, not just a paragraph.

For complaints about conduct, commercial content or privacy rather than accuracy, write to hello@hekno.co.uk. Privacy matters can go directly to privacy@hekno.co.uk, and security matters to security@hekno.co.uk.

See also editorial policy and sources and evidence.