Corrections Policy

Email metalviewofficial@gmail.com with the page URL, a short explanation of the problem, and any supporting context. Helpful examples include a broken link, outdated guidance, confusing unit label, incorrect purity explanation, or a factual statement that needs review.

Please include the approximate time you saw the issue and, if relevant, a screenshot or a comparison with another public quote. You do not need a formal subject line; "Correction: [page title]" is enough.

We review editorial wording, methodological clarity, broken links, outdated examples, wrong units, and any issue that could materially affect how a reader interprets a benchmark rate or buying guide.

Benchmark price volatility alone is not treated as an editorial correction. Metal prices move through the day; a different number on your dealer's board does not automatically mean our page is wrong. We do treat it as a correction if the page explains the context inaccurately—for example, presenting a benchmark as a final jewellery bill, mixing per-gram and per-10g figures without labelling, or claiming a guarantee we do not offer.

• Incorrect metal, purity, or unit labelling that could mislead a purchase decision
• Editorial claims that contradict our methodology or disclaimer
• Broken critical navigation to live rates, guides, or policy pages
• Outdated legal or tax framing that we present as current guidance
• Plagiarised or accidentally duplicated content that should be unique

Typos that do not change meaning are fixed when found, but they are not always announced as formal corrections.

If we confirm an issue, we update the relevant page and refresh the visible review or last-updated date where appropriate. For recurring issues that affect multiple pages, we may update shared templates, methodology text, or editorial standards pages as well.

When a correction changes how readers should interpret a rate (for example, fixing a unit mix-up), we aim to make the corrected wording explicit rather than silently swapping numbers without context.

We aim to acknowledge clear, actionable reports within a few business days. Urgent issues that could mislead a purchase (wrong unit, wrong metal label) are prioritised over cosmetic feedback. Complex disputes that need source checks may take longer; we will say so if we need more time.

For more detail on how content is reviewed and how benchmark rates are sourced, see our Editorial Policy and Methodology pages.