We welcome constructive feedback on statistics, methodology, and readability. This page explains which requests we can handle, what information helps us process them quickly, and what response standards you can expect. If you need legal terms or data-handling details, see Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Email: hello@onlycrawl.com
For fastest handling, include the page URL, a short summary of your request, and any supporting references. Requests with clear context can usually be reviewed more efficiently than messages that only include a general concern.
We do not guarantee immediate response windows, but we prioritize requests that affect factual accuracy, link integrity, legal compliance, or reader safety.
If you believe a page contains an error, provide four specific items. First, include the exact page URL. Second, quote the claim you believe is inaccurate. Third, explain why the claim appears wrong. Fourth, include evidence with enough detail for independent review. This structure helps us evaluate corrections fairly and avoids delays caused by back-and-forth clarification.
Correction requests are reviewed against our editorial standards, source quality criteria, and update policy. If the request identifies a clear factual issue, we will update the page and adjust related references when needed. If a claim falls into interpretation rather than objective error, we may add clarifying language rather than replacing the original statement entirely. The goal is accuracy with traceable reasoning, not reactive rewriting.
When material changes are made, we try to keep internal consistency across linked pages. For example, if a revised benchmark affects interpretation in user, revenue, and creator earnings pages, we update all relevant pages rather than patching a single isolated location. This reduces confusion and keeps topical context coherent.
We encourage readers to ask methodology questions, especially when terms appear ambiguous. Statistics content often fails not because numbers are false, but because definitions are unclear. If you are unsure whether a metric represents registered accounts, active participants, transaction flow, or retention-adjusted behavior, ask us. We would rather clarify early than allow vague interpretation to spread through secondary citations.
We also welcome questions about page scope and topic coverage. If you think a distinct user question is currently underserved, explain the use case and we will review whether additional coverage is warranted.
Methodology responses are educational and informational, not legal or financial advice. For regulated decisions, consult appropriate professionals.
We may review responsible partnership requests related to citation, educational syndication, or research collaboration. Include your organization name, use case, page scope, and expected distribution context. Requests lacking practical detail are difficult to evaluate and may not receive a full response.
Partnership review does not imply endorsement. We reserve discretion to decline requests that are misaligned with our editorial independence, quality standards, or legal constraints.
If you encounter abusive use of our content, impersonation, or harmful framing tied to this site, report it through the main email channel with relevant links and screenshots where possible. We do not tolerate harassment or deceptive reuse of our material and may pursue corrective action consistent with applicable law and policy.
Safety-related reports are prioritized above general informational inquiries.
We strive for clear, respectful communication, but we cannot guarantee support for every request type. We generally do not provide one-on-one strategy consulting, confidential legal interpretation, custom private data analysis, or guaranteed editorial timelines for external projects. The site is operated as an educational publishing resource, and response capacity is finite.
To keep communication efficient, we may group repeated requests into a single documented response pattern when the same topic appears frequently. We may also decline requests that seek publication changes without evidence or that ask us to present uncertain figures as guaranteed facts.
Contacting us does not create a client, advisory, fiduciary, or contractual relationship unless a separate written agreement is explicitly established.
Send the page URL, the exact claim, your evidence, and a short explanation to hello@onlycrawl.com.
We try to respond to substantive requests, especially corrections and safety concerns, but we cannot guarantee a response to all outreach.
Limited reference use with attribution is generally expected for editorial contexts. For broader reuse or commercial licensing, contact us with details first.
Review Editorial Policy, About Us, and Disclaimer.
Effective communication depends on request clarity. Messages that include precise page references and direct evidence can usually be reviewed quickly and fairly. Messages that only express broad disagreement without identifying claims are harder to evaluate and may require additional follow-up. We do not require formal language, but we do ask for enough detail to verify what needs review.
Correction-focused communication is especially valuable because it improves both current and future content quality. When a correction reveals a pattern, such as unclear definitions or inconsistent caveat phrasing, we use that signal to improve related pages as well. This approach reduces repeat issues and strengthens the reliability of the entire site, not just the page where the issue was first reported.
For partnership inquiries, practical context helps us decide whether collaboration is responsible and aligned. Tell us what material you want to reference, where it will appear, and what audience will see it. We are more likely to respond constructively when request scope is transparent and the intended use respects our editorial independence.
Privacy-aware communication is encouraged. Avoid sharing unnecessary personal data in initial outreach. If identity verification is needed for rights requests, we will request only the minimum information required to process the request safely. For details about data handling, please review Privacy Policy.
We appreciate respectful disagreement and evidence-based critique. Statistics interpretation can involve judgment calls, and good-faith debate often improves clarity for everyone. If you think a page can better communicate uncertainty or context, share a concrete suggestion. Clear examples are often the fastest path to meaningful revisions.
A strong correction request can be as short as five lines: page URL, quoted claim, issue summary, supporting source, and expected correction direction. A strong methodology request can include the exact term that appears unclear and the alternate definitions under consideration. A strong partnership request can include the intended publication context, audience size, and attribution format. Clear formatting reduces ambiguity and shortens review cycles.
We recommend avoiding all-in-one requests that combine unrelated issues across many pages without prioritization. If multiple concerns exist, rank them by urgency and impact. This helps us handle high-priority accuracy and safety items first while still acknowledging broader feedback.
If you do not receive an immediate response, please avoid duplicating the same request repeatedly within short intervals. A single, well-structured follow-up with additional evidence is usually more effective than multiple near-identical messages. Our goal is to process requests fairly and consistently based on issue severity and clarity.
High-quality requests help us improve the site faster. If you are unsure how to frame a request, send the page URL and a plain-language explanation of what seems unclear or inaccurate. We can follow up for detail if needed. Clarity and evidence are always more helpful than volume.
For legal or privacy-sensitive issues, include only the minimum personal data required to process your request and reference relevant pages such as Privacy Policy or Terms for context.
If your request concerns a specific statistic, include the exact sentence and why its interpretation may cause risk for readers. This helps us prioritize high-impact clarifications quickly and accurately.
We appreciate concise, evidence-based communication and use it to strengthen both page quality and editorial process standards.
We value concise reports that improve clarity for future readers. Evidence-backed requests are prioritized because they directly improve editorial reliability and reduce repeated confusion.
If your message concerns high-risk decisions, explain the decision context so we can direct you to the correct policy pages quickly. We cannot provide legal or financial advice, but we can clarify what our published content does and does not claim. This distinction helps users avoid relying on pages beyond their intended scope.
Structured communication improves response quality for everyone involved in the review process.