Managers may rely on our guides when changing work schedules or choosing software. If we publish a material error, we want to identify it, correct it, and explain changes that could affect a reader’s decision.
What can you report?
Please tell us about inaccurate product features, prices, plan limits, integrations, source references, legal details, or scheduling guidance. We also welcome evidence that a product has changed in a way that could affect its eligibility, score, or ranking.
Include the article URL, the specific statement, and why you believe it needs correction. A link to current official documentation or other verifiable evidence helps us investigate.
How we assess a report
We compare the published claim with its original evidence and any relevant new sources. We may ask for clarification or check additional documentation.
When we confirm a material factual error, we correct the article. If it affects a product’s eligibility or score, we reassess any other rankings that could be affected. A change to the scoring method may require recalculating the entire eligible field.
We apply the same standard to concerns raised by readers, competing software vendors, and Connecteam. Connecteam owns and operates The Schedulist but does not control editorial corrections or rankings. Disagreement with a conclusion is not enough to trigger a ranking change without supporting evidence.
How corrections appear
Material corrections: When a confirmed error changes practical advice, product eligibility, a score, or a ranking, we add a dated explanation to the affected article describing the correction.
Routine edits: We may fix spelling, formatting, and minor wording without a separate note when the meaning is unchanged.
Product updates: When a product introduces a new feature or changes its price, we update verified information and distinguish that change from an error in the original article.
We do not change an article’s update date simply to make it look more recent.
Corrections involving review evidence
We research software using official documentation and existing third-party reviews. If new evidence contradicts a previously reported pattern, or a claim can no longer be verified, we reassess the wording and the affected score where relevant. We may qualify or remove claims with insufficient support.
See How We Review Software for our research process.
Request a correction
Use our contact page and select Correction or factual error. Send the relevant URL and supporting evidence. We review specific, verifiable concerns and may contact you for clarification.