WebVitalsDev sources and fact-checking policy

Source selection

Official documentation and specifications are the preferred sources for browser, platform and protocol behavior. These include relevant standards, Google Search Central, web.dev, Chrome Developers, MDN and platform maintainers' documentation.

A search result, automated summary or research assistant can help locate material, but it is not a substitute for the underlying source. A source is used for what it establishes, not merely because its title sounds relevant.

Dates, versions and scope

Guidance can change as browsers, frameworks and tools evolve. Version-sensitive examples identify their intended context. Publication dates, update dates and the date a source was checked are different facts and must not be substituted for one another.

An official page can also contain outdated wording or an unresolved inconsistency. Where sources conflict, the explanation should identify the conflict, seek the more specific evidence and avoid presenting an unsupported conclusion as settled.

Numbers and examples

Thresholds, weights and factual performance figures require an identifiable source. Illustrative numbers and code are described as examples, not invented benchmarks. WebVitalsDev does not manufacture search-volume estimates, ranking guarantees or before-and-after results.

Field and lab measurements are kept distinct. So are URL and origin scope, a single run and a population percentile, and an estimate and an observed saving.

Corrections and limitations

Material limits belong beside the claim they qualify. Research notes should not be disguised as firsthand testing. Readers can report a suspected error to [email protected]; the corrections policy explains how confirmed errors are addressed.