Our process
Methodology
We separate what a source proves from what it claims, show what remains unknown, and distinguish course legitimacy from quality, value, and learner outcomes.
Two report types
Full editorial reports are researched, sourced, dated, rated, and eligible for search indexing. Generated URL checks inspect limited public website signals only. Generated and name-only reports remain excluded from search indexing and never receive an editorial rating.
The 0–5 editorial rating
Each full report scores seven criteria from 0 to 5. The overall result is the weighted average, rounded to one decimal so we do not imply precision the evidence cannot support.
- Instructor credibility — 15%
- Curriculum quality — 20%
- Transparency — 15%
- Student evidence — 15%
- Value — 15%
- Course maintenance — 10%
- Trust — 10%
Every criterion must include its score, weight, rationale, and source IDs. A 3.3/5 rating means the weighted result rounded to one decimal; it does not mean a guaranteed 66% chance of success.
Minimum evidence and confidence
We publish a full rating only when each criterion has at least one registered source and the source registry can support a transparent evidence trail. Confidence is labeled Low, Moderate, or High based on recency, source independence, first-hand access, and how much essential product information remains unknown. Confidence describes the evidence behind the assessment—not confidence that a student will get results.
Evidence classes
- Verified / current official: a current first-party page directly supports the stated fact. Official does not mean independently verified.
- Historical / archived: a dated snapshot supports what was visible or reported then, not what is true now.
- Seller claim: a statement made by the seller that we could not independently verify.
- Third-party / user report: an outside account, labeled for possible incentives, affiliate relationships, and limits.
- Our analysis: our interpretation of the cited evidence, kept separate from source facts.
- Unknown: information that the available evidence cannot establish. Missing evidence is not treated as proof of wrongdoing.
Legitimacy is not quality
A course can appear to be a real product from an identifiable business and still be a poor fit, outdated, overpriced, or unsupported. Likewise, limited evidence does not prove a course is fraudulent. Our verdict answers the narrow legitimacy question first, then separately explains quality, outcome, value, and availability limits.
How we handle price, refunds, and freshness
Every editorial report has a last-checked date. Current terms are shown only when a current source supports them. Historical prices or refund claims are explicitly dated and never presented as current. A company-wide legal page is not assumed to apply to a specific archived product without evidence.
Generated URL checks
When you submit a public URL, the server attempts a time-limited request and records protocol, reachable HTTP status, page title, and discoverable references to refund, privacy, terms, and contact pages. A discovered link does not prove policy contents or enforcement. These checks do not inspect lessons, interview students, or validate outcomes.
Safety and limits
The checker accepts HTTP and HTTPS only, blocks local and non-public network destinations after DNS resolution, validates redirects, limits request time and response size, and does not execute page JavaScript. Pages and course offers can change after a check.