Independent guide · we don’t clean ducts

Corrections Policy

Direct answer

If something on this site is wrong, tell us and we will fix it. Reports go to Clay@SelectLocalSEO.com. Substantive corrections are disclosed on the page itself, with a dated note saying what was wrong and what it now says. We do not quietly edit an error out of existence. Typographical fixes are made silently; anything that changes the meaning of a claim is not.

How to report an error

The reporting channel is not open yet

Send it to Clay@SelectLocalSEO.com. Include the page address and the exact sentence or figure at issue; if you have a document that shows the correct position, a direct link to it is worth more than a description. Corrections are read before anything else in that inbox. The checks below are worth doing first regardless: every figure on this site is published with its source, its date, and a direct link, so a claim can be tested against the document it came from without waiting for us to reply.

Reports will go through the contact page. The most useful report includes:

  • The page address and, if you can, the sentence or figure in question.
  • What you believe is wrong about it.
  • Any source that shows the correct position, if you have one. This is genuinely helpful but not required.

You do not need credentials to report an error and we do not weight reports by who sent them. A homeowner noticing that a number contradicts another page is doing exactly the job this policy exists for. If you work in the trade and something we wrote is wrong in a way only a technician would catch, that is the most valuable report we can receive, since nobody here has field experience.

What happens next

  1. We check it against the source. Every claim on the site is tied to a named source with a date, so the first step is opening that source and reading the passage again. If the source has changed since we cited it, that is itself the finding.
  2. We decide what kind of error it is. The categories are below, and the category determines how the fix is handled.
  3. We fix it, and we fix it everywhere. Figures on this site are reused across pages. A correction to a cost figure is applied to the cost guide, the calculator, the facts reference, and anywhere else it appears, in the same edit.
  4. We reply. If you left a way to reach you, we will tell you what we found, including when we conclude the original was right. Disagreement is a legitimate outcome and we will explain the reasoning rather than just declining.

We aim to acknowledge reports promptly and to correct clear factual errors quickly. A report that requires re-tracing a source lineage takes longer, because doing it properly takes longer.

How corrections are marked

How different kinds of change are handled
Kind of changeHow it is handled
Typographical and formatting Spelling, punctuation, a broken link, a table that renders badly. Fixed silently. The meaning does not change, so a note would be noise.
Substantive correction A wrong figure, a misattributed source, a misstated position, a date error, or anything that changes what a reader would conclude. Fixed and disclosed with a dated correction note on the page saying what was wrong and what it now says. The note stays permanently.
Clarification The original was accurate but could be read the wrong way. Rewritten, with a dated note explaining what was clarified where the ambiguity was material.
Update The facts changed rather than us being wrong: a source published new figures, an enforcement action concluded, an agency revised its guidance. The page is updated and its last-updated date changes. This is not a correction and is not labeled as one.
Retraction A claim we should not have published at all. The claim is removed and a note explains what was removed and why. We do not delete the page to make the problem disappear.

The commitment

A substantive correction is disclosed, not silently edited. That is the whole point of this page and it is worth stating without hedging.

The reasoning is simple. This site asks you to trust its figures on the strength of its sourcing. A publication that fixes errors invisibly is asking for that trust while removing the only evidence you could use to calibrate it. Every visible correction on this site tells you something true about how carefully the rest was done, which is why we would rather carry the notes than look flawless.

The same logic governs dates. We do not refresh a “last reviewed” date to make a page look current; that date changes only when someone actually reopened the sources. That rule is set out in full in the editorial policy.

Corrections issued

Every substantive correction we make is listed here, newest first, and noted on the pages it affects. The list is permanent. It opens before the site was public, because the first entry was caught during pre-publication review rather than after a reader found it. We record those the same way and mark them as what they are: the whole site published on 15 August 2026, so nothing below was ever live in its uncorrected form.

Substantive corrections, newest first, including those made before publication
DateWhat we had writtenWhat was wrongWhat it says instead
Corrected before publication, 15 August 2026 During pre-publication review we found that the draft said the Colorado attorney general had documented duct cleaning companies advertising two to three hours for work that actually required five to eight hours. The claim had spread through the duct cleaning duration page, the process page, the scams page, the how-it-works hub, the checklists, the questions-to-ask page, and the facts reference. The attribution. The statement that a real job takes five to eight hours rather than two to three was made by Eddie Frisk, general manager of Ductworks — a competing duct-cleaning company — quoted by CBS Colorado in its November 25, 2013 report. It appears in no attorney general filing. We had drafted a rival contractor’s estimate, given to a reporter and carrying an obvious commercial interest, as a regulator’s finding. The claim was removed everywhere it had been presented as an enforcement finding, before any of it reached a reader. Where a duration figure is needed, we now cite Consumer Reports, February 4, 2008: a quality job takes two technicians about 8 to 15 hours, labeled as a single eighteen-year-old consumer-research figure rather than a current benchmark. Where the competitor’s remark is still useful, it is attributed to the competing company and flagged as such. The page on how long duct cleaning takes was rebuilt rather than patched, because it had been written around the misattributed figure.

Two things were added in the same pre-publication edit, which are updates rather than corrections and are recorded here for completeness. The Colorado case now carries its final resolution: $916,000 ordered against Andre Shatyko and Alexander Kurdyukov, reduced to $150,000 if paid, plus a permanent ban on advertising or performing air-duct cleaning services in Colorado. And the pages affected now state plainly that no government agency and no standards body publishes a duct cleaning duration at all.

What is not a correction

Two things we get asked about and treat differently.

Disagreement with our conclusions. Our editorial position is that most homes do not need routine duct cleaning, and we reach it from U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) guidance rather than from a preference. If you think the reasoning is wrong, we will engage with that, and if the argument holds we will change the page and say why. But a conclusion you dislike is not automatically an error, and we will not soften a sourced position because someone in the industry objects to it.

Requests to remove accurate reporting. The enforcement record we cite comes from attorney general filings, court complaints, and published investigations. We will correct any detail we have got wrong about any case, immediately. We will not remove accurate, sourced descriptions of documented proceedings.

What to do next

Sources & references