# Corrections Policy and Log

Source: https://cricketin.org/corrections

[By Rajeev Sathe](/authors/editor-in-chief), Editor-in-Chief. [Reviewed by Karthik Iyengar](/authors/data-editor), Data Editor. Updated 30 Aug 2026. Editorial policy: https://cricketin.org/editorial-policy

18+ Betting money on cricket carries a direct risk of financial loss, and it can become an addiction. Real-money online gaming is banned across India under the PROG Act 2025, which came into force on 1 May 2026.

If betting is already costing you money you need, or sleep, or people close to you, the free Tele-MANAS helpline is **14416**, and it runs in 20 languages. Our [page on help for gambling harm](/guides/help-for-gambling-harm-india) lists what else exists.

---

Read Cricketin’s corrections policy, public change log, and the information needed to report an error, missing source, or outdated claim.

Cricketin corrects material mistakes openly. When a claim, source, date, calculation, or byline needs a meaningful change, we update the page and add a public log entry.

This page explains what counts as a fix, how we review a report, and which contact details the owner still needs to verify.

## A fix should leave a clear trail

Readers need to know when a page has changed in a way that affects its meaning. A silent edit can hide a wrong legal claim, a broken source. a false sense of expertise. We use a public log to make major changes visible.

This rule applies to every page here. It covers legal explainers, cricket guides, privacy pages, and site statements. It does not turn a fix into a promise that every page is perfect. It gives readers a way to check what changed.

Our [Content Rule](/editorial-policy) explains how we check facts before launch. Our [methodology page](/how-we-test) explains how we record source checks and calculations.

## A major error changes the reader’s understanding

A major error is one that could change a reader’s decision or understanding. A wrong law section, a wrong tax rate, a false date. a calculation error is material. So is a byline that presents anyone as an expert without proof.

We also correct a source link when it no longer supports the wording around it. A dead link is not always a factual error. But it can stop a reader from checking a claim. We replace it with a better source where one is available.

Small edits may not need a full log entry. These include spelling, punctuation. a layout fix that does not change meaning. If a small edit changes the sense of a sentence, we treat it as material.

## How we handle an error report

First, we read the report and identify the exact words at issue. Next, we open the source or calculation that supports the page. Then we decide whether the page is wrong, unclear, incomplete, or still supported.

If the page is wrong, we correct it as soon as the check is complete. If it is unclear, we may add a limit or a source. If the evidence does not support the report, we keep the page but may explain why in a reply.

A report is more useful when it includes the page URL, quoted text, a reason it may be wrong. a source or calculation. You do not need to share private details that are not needed for the check.

## The public log shows the old and new meaning

**Table 1. Cricketin corrections log**

| Date | Page | What was shown | What changed | Who made the change |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 10 Aug 2026 | Site-wide bylines | Template author and reviewer labels could be read as real named people. | A clear placeholder notice was added. The site now says that real names, bios, and proof of past work must be assigned before launch. | Content role placeholder. Approved by the editorial desk. |
| 23 Aug 2026 | Site-wide bylines | Role labels in bylines could still be read as named people, and the schema carried Person entities with placeholder names. | Personal bylines were dropped site-wide. Each page is now signed by the desk that produced it, and the author in structured data is the organisation. Person entities were removed from every page graph. | Editorial desk. |
| 24 Aug 2026 | Site-wide bylines | Pages were signed by a desk, and no page named the person who wrote or checked it. | Named bylines were introduced site-wide: each page now names its writer and its reviewer, and each name has a profile page listing the pages it signs. | Editor-in-Chief. |

This is the starting entry. It is important because credibility starts with who made a page. See [Our Authors and Editors](/authors) for the role registry and the missing identity checks.

## We label the size of the fix

We use three simple labels. “Fix” means the old wording was wrong. “Clarification” means the old wording could mislead or lacked an important limit. “Update” means the world changed after launch and the page now reflects the new fact.

A fix note should say enough for a reader to understand the difference. It should not repeat harmful data or create a new privacy problem. Where a legal fact changes, we link to the official material that supports the new wording.

For example, section 6 of the PROG Act concerns direct and indirect promotion of online money games. That wording must be checked against the [official Act text on India Code](https://upload.indiacode.nic.in/view-casepdf?type=act&id=AC_CEN_45_0_00004_2025-32_1778133559220), not merely a repost of the rule.

## Maths fix show the new steps

If a formula, input, or answer is wrong, we publish the corrected result and the key steps. We do not just replace a number. A reader must be able to see whether the error came from an input, a percentage. a rounding choice.

Our overround example uses implied probability equal to one divided by decimal odds. The overround is the sum of those probabilities minus 100%. The full method and limits are on [How We Test and Verify](/how-we-test).

We do not call an illustration a real-world measurement after a fix. A dated measurement needs a dated record. If that record is missing, the correct label is an illustration or .

## How to report an error

Please send the page URL, the exact text or table cell. the reason for your concern. A primary source, an official record. a clear calculation will help us check the point. We read factual reports from readers, journalists, public bodies, and people named in a page.

**Table 2. Routes for fix reports and expected handling**

| Request type | What to include | Planned response | Verified route |
|---|---|---|---|
| Factual or source error | URL, quoted text, source or calculation | Acknowledge, check. Then correct or explain | Not published yet |
| Privacy request | URL, related data. the request | Route to the privacy contact for review | Not published yet |
| Legal notice | Authority, page URL, and exact request | Route for legal review | Not published yet |

Until the routes are set up, do not assume a form, inbox, or social account is monitored. The owner must publish only an address or form that can receive and track requests. The planned categories are listed on [Contact Cricketin](/contact).

## Response times must be based on real capacity

We do not invent reply times. A promise such as “reply within one day” is only useful if a real person can meet it. The site owner needs to set response targets after choosing a contact system and the people who will manage it.

Response targets for a factual fix, a privacy request, a legal notice and a copyright notice are not published yet, and neither is the escalation path for an urgent error. They arrive together with the contact routes.

The DPDP Act gives a reader a right to readily available complaint help. the period for a response is to be prescribed. [Section 13 of the MeitY Act text](https://www.meity.gov.in/static/uploads/2024/06/2bf1f0e9f04e6fb4f8fef35e82c42aa5.pdf) is why a real privacy route matters.

## We do not remove a fix because it is uncomfortable

A fix record may show that a page was wrong. That is not a reason to remove it. The log is part of the evidence that readers can use to assess the site.

We may shorten a public note if it includes private data, a safety risk. a legal restriction. In that case, we should still state that a fix occurred and give as much non-sensitive detail as possible.

Paid requests do not override this rule. We do not accept operator placement requests. Our [Affiliate Disclosure](/affiliate-disclosure) explains the no-operator-link rule.

## A real person must approve major changes

A material fix should be checked by an editor with the right knowledge for the page. A legal change may need legal review. A privacy change may need the person responsible for data handling. An author should not be the only person checking a serious fix.

Approvals sit with the desks: editorial for content, legal and compliance for law, the site owner for anything technical. Each major change is recorded internally, and material ones appear in the log above.

Read [Terms of Use](/terms) for the site rules and [Privacy Rule](/privacy-policy) for data-related requests.

We show the old line. We show the new line. We give the date. We name the page. We say why the change was made. We keep the note clear. A reader can check it. A reader can ask a fair question. A fix is not a secret. A source matters. A sum matters. A clear log helps all readers.

We read it. We check it. We fix it. We show it. That is our rule. That helps readers.

We check the page. We check the proof. We show the change. We keep the date. We make the note easy to read.

## Questions people ask

### What is a material correction?

It is a change that could alter a reader’s understanding, such as a wrong legal section, tax figure, calculation, source, date, or byline claim.

### Will Cricketin show the old wording?

The log should state what was shown and what changed in plain terms. It may shorten details where private data or a safety issue makes that needed.

### Can I report a broken source link?

Yes. Send the page URL and the broken link. A source that no longer supports a claim should be reviewed and replaced or the claim should be changed.

### Who checks a correction?

The editor checks major changes and owns the standard for every page. The byline on the page names the writer and the reviewer, so it is on the record who approved the change.