Corrections Policy

Next-Gen Gaming Blog aims to correct verified factual errors clearly, fairly and in proportion to their significance.

This policy explains how readers can report possible errors and how NGB distinguishes corrections from routine updates, clarifications and minor editorial changes.

What May Require a Correction

A correction may be appropriate when published material contains a verifiable error involving:

a person, company, game or product name;
a release date or supported platform;
a price, edition or subscription detail;
a direct quotation or attribution;
a technical specification;
a performance result;
a documented feature or patch detail;
a material description of an event or announcement;
a source link that supports a different claim from the one published;
an allegation presented with an incorrect status.

The significance of an error depends on whether it changes the reader’s understanding of the article, its subject or its conclusion.

Corrections, Clarifications and Updates

Correction

A correction fixes factual information that was wrong or materially misleading when published.

Clarification

A clarification improves context or wording where the original article may be misunderstood, even if the original statement was not strictly false.

Update

An update adds information that became available after publication, such as a revised release date, platform confirmation, patch, official response or new evidence.

Minor Edit

Minor spelling, grammar, formatting, punctuation, broken-link or style changes that do not alter the meaning may be made without a separate correction notice.

These categories help readers understand whether the original article contained an error, required additional context or became outdated because circumstances changed.

How Corrections Are Reviewed

When a correction request is received, NGB may:

identify the exact statement or element being challenged;
review the article and its original sources;
check the submitted evidence;
contact the writer or editor responsible;
seek additional documentation or an attributable response;
determine whether the issue is a factual error, clarification, update or disagreement of opinion;
decide what change and explanatory note are appropriate.

The requested change is not accepted automatically. The purpose of review is to determine what the evidence supports and what form of correction, clarification or update would be accurate.

How Material Corrections Are Displayed

When a material factual error is corrected, NGB should, where appropriate:

correct the inaccurate text;
add a correction note explaining the substance of the change;
avoid silently rewriting a material error in a way that conceals what happened;
update the modification date through the website system where applicable;
correct related headlines, captions, summaries or social text where practical.

The wording and placement of a correction note depend on the significance of the error. A correction note should be informative enough for readers to understand what changed without unnecessarily repeating the entire article.

Reviews, Rankings and Opinion

A disagreement with an author’s opinion, review score, verdict, recommendation or ranking position does not by itself establish a factual error.

However, factual statements used to support an opinion remain eligible for correction.

Examples include:

incorrectly stated platform availability;
an inaccurate feature description;
a mistaken technical claim;
a false statement about a developer or publisher;
an incorrect quotation.

Correcting a factual statement does not necessarily require changing the author’s overall opinion when that conclusion remains reasonably supported.

Changing Circumstances

A statement may have been accurate when published but later become outdated because of:

a release delay or cancellation;
a price change;
a new platform version;
a major patch;
a revised system requirement;
a company correction or official clarification;
a full release following Early Access.

These cases normally require an update rather than a correction, unless the original article was already inaccurate at publication.

An update should preserve the distinction between what was known at publication and what became known later.

Removal and De-Indexing Requests

NGB generally preserves published material as part of the editorial record.

Accurate content is not normally removed solely because it is unfavourable, critical or inconvenient.

Removal, archiving or restriction may be considered when justified by:

substantial factual problems;
duplication;
privacy or safety concerns;
legal concerns requiring appropriate review;
technical migration;
lack of continuing editorial value;
content that should not have been published under NGB standards.

A request for removal should explain why correction, clarification or updating would not adequately address the concern.

Submitting a Correction Request

Send suspected factual errors to:

[email protected]

Please include:

the article URL;
the exact sentence, image, caption or data point involved;
a clear explanation of the suspected error;
a reliable source, document or other supporting evidence;
your contact details if follow-up is needed;
any relevant professional or commercial relationship to the subject.

Providing a precise reference and reliable evidence helps NGB evaluate the issue without having to infer what part of the article is being challenged.

What May Not Receive a Response

NGB may not respond individually to:

messages that do not identify an article or claim;
unsupported demands to remove accurate coverage;
requests based only on disagreement with an opinion;
abusive, threatening, automated or repetitive messages;
claims that cannot be evaluated because no evidence is provided.

Lack of an individual response does not change the distinction between a supported factual correction and a general complaint.

Contact and Escalation

Corrections should be sent first to the corrections address.

General editorial questions may be sent to: