Verified Beauty Data

Corrections / The record

What we got wrong

A site that claims every number is checkable has to show what happened when a number wasn't. This log is append-only: entries are never edited or removed, and if an entry turns out to be wrong itself, it gets a new entry rather than a quiet rewrite. Errors caught before they shipped are not listed here — that is the method working, not a correction.

Found something wrong? hello@verifiedbeautydata.com

Log / Newest first

4 corrections

  1. Homepage claim; 114 product prices

    Prices were described as weekly-checked when they were not

    What was wrong
    The homepage said every price is re-checked against Amazon weekly. In fact the most recent price sweep across the catalogue ran on 2026-08-20, and three products carried prices last verified on 2026-07-30 — 18 and 39 days old respectively at the time this was caught.
    Why it happened
    The claim was written when the price sweep was running frequently, and was never revised when the cadence slipped. Each individual product page did carry its true "price as of" date, so the per-page numbers were honest; the site-level summary of them was not.
    What changed
    The homepage claim now describes the actual cadence rather than an aspirational one, and points to the per-product verification date that was always there.
    Found by
    Our own audit
  2. 3 pages

    Three dupe reports displayed "last checked undefined"

    What was wrong
    On the SkinCeuticals C E Ferulic, SkinCeuticals Phloretin CF and Crème de la Mer dupe reports, the note explaining that a candidate product had left Amazon read "last checked undefined" instead of naming a date.
    Why it happened
    The template read a date field that is only populated for products flagged unavailable by the automated liveness gate. For products delisted before that gate existed, the field was empty and rendered as the literal word "undefined".
    What changed
    The template now falls back to the date the product record was last verified, and renders no parenthetical at all when no date is known rather than printing a placeholder.
    Found by
    Our own audit
  3. 24 pages

    24 ingredient pages promised a ranking that was never coming

    What was wrong
    Ingredient pages for allantoin, ceramides, centella, panthenol, urea and 19 other actives carried a section headed "measured product rankings coming soon", above a note about ranking by price per gram of active, above no ranking at all.
    Why it happened
    The heading treated a real result as an unfinished task. There was no ranking on those pages for a substantive reason: a price per gram of active requires a disclosed percentage, and not one product we had checked published one for those ingredients. Calling that "coming soon" implied the work was pending when in fact the answer was already in.
    What changed
    Those sections now state the finding — that no brand publishes a dose for the ingredient, and why that makes any ranking dishonest — and then list the products confirmed to contain it at an unstated amount. Nothing was removed; the framing was wrong, not the content.
    Found by
    Our own audit
  4. 27 links across 21 products — 11.8% of all buy links

    27 buy links pointed at Amazon listings that no longer existed

    What was wrong
    Buy buttons on product and dupe pages linked to Amazon listings that had been delisted. A reader clicking one landed on an unavailable product, and six of those products were already marked unavailable on our own pages while still showing a live buy button.
    Why it happened
    The internal "unavailable" flag only drove the availability field in structured data. Nothing in the page templates actually suppressed the link, so a product could be labelled unavailable and still render a working buy button.
    What changed
    The unavailable flag now suppresses the buy path everywhere it appears — the buy-the-original call to action, both verdict-card lanes, and the scoreboard row. Four links were repointed to a live listing of the identical size; the other seventeen were flagged rather than swapped, because every replacement the API offered was a different strength, formula or size, and silently substituting one would have falsified the price-per-gram figure that is the whole point of the ranking.
    Found by
    Our own automated listing-liveness gate

Policy / How this works

Our corrections policy

If a formula here doesn't match the bottle in your hand, or a study doesn't say what we claim it says, that is a verifiable error. Tell us what the label or the paper actually says and we will re-verify it against the primary source. If we were wrong, the page is corrected, its Verified date is updated, and the error is logged here with what caused it.

We do not silently edit. Substantive factual corrections get an entry on this page. Typos, formatting and layout changes do not — nobody needs a changelog of comma fixes.

The method that is supposed to prevent these errors is documented in full on the about page, and who is accountable for it is on the author page.