Why this page exists
Every site says its information is accurate. Almost none of them show you what happened when it wasn’t.
This page is the record of every figure we have published or held that turned out to be wrong. It is permanent — entries are never quietly deleted — and each one says what the number was, what it should have been, how we found out, and what we changed so it does not happen again the same way.
We would rather you judge us on this page than on our promises. A site with an empty corrections page after a year of publishing is either very lucky or not looking very hard.
Found something wrong? Tell us — the WhatsApp button on any page reaches a human — and we will check it. If you are right, it appears here with your correction dated, whether or not it flatters us.
What counts as a correction
Any change to a figure, a rule, or a factual claim — prices, taxes, times, distances, requirements. Rewording a sentence, adding a section, or improving an explanation is not a correction and does not appear here; those show up as a newer “last verified” date on the page itself.
We log a correction whether or not the wrong figure reached a published page. Errors we caught in our own checks are listed too, marked as such. They are the ones that tell you the checks are real.
The log
31 Jul 2026 — Our own “last verified” date was wrong
What we showed: every page carried a “last verified” stamp dated 14 August 2026 — a date in the future.
What was right: the stamp should show the most recent date on which a human confirmed one of the facts that page cites. For most pages that was 30 July 2026.
How it happened: the date was hardcoded into the page template as placeholder text during the build and was never replaced with the real value from the fact ledger.
What changed: the date is now taken from the fact ledger at publish time. Where no verified date exists, the stamp is removed entirely rather than shown with a placeholder — a missing date is better than a false one. Two ledger rows that carried the same future date have had it cleared.
Why we are listing this one first: it is the most serious error on this page, even though no price was wrong. “Last verified” is the number that underwrites every other number we publish. A freshness claim that runs ahead of the actual checking is exactly the kind of thing this site exists to call out in other people, and we did it ourselves.
One detail is still being confirmed and we would rather say so than guess: the exact set of pages that displayed the incorrect date while it was live, and the day the fix reached the site. This entry will be updated with both when confirmed; the mechanism itself — the date now comes from the ledger or the stamp does not render — is already in place.
2 Aug 2026 — Our draft said no renewal provision existed; the 1992 land law contains one
What we drafted: a property page stating that agencies’ “33 years, renewable up to 99” lease claim had no renewal provision behind it in any official instrument we had read.
What was right: the renewal half of the claim is statutory. Section 47(2) of Zanzibar’s Land Tenure Act 1992 says public-land leases “may be renewed” — we found it ourselves, one day later, when we completed our own read of the Act. What remains without a citation is the specific “99-year total” and how the 1992 renewal power applies to the Investment Act 2023’s 33-year lease.
How it happened: we had read the 2023 Act’s schedules and generalised the absence into a wider impression than our reading supported. Our own audit flagged the overreach and scoped the sentence; the follow-through read then found the provision.
Reached publication? No. Caught between draft and preview. We are listing it anyway, because the page in question polices exactly this kind of overreach in others — and because it shows the sequence working: audit narrows the claim, follow-through tests it, the ledger records both.
31 Jul 2026 — We withdrew a wedding price comparison entirely
What we held: beach wedding packages cost “$990–2,290 from a local operator versus about $9,500 from an international one.”
What was wrong: two things. We could not find the $9,500 figure at any operator, local or foreign, when we went looking for its source. And the comparison itself was built wrong — the price gap is driven by what is inside the package, not by where the operator is based. A local planner’s $990 buys a ceremony: planning, setup, legal paperwork. The large numbers are whole events including venue, catering and guests. We were comparing two different products and blaming the difference on nationality.
How it happened: the figure entered our records as an unsourced starting value and was never checked before being written into our content plan.
What changed: the claim is withdrawn and will not be reinstated. It is replaced by two figures that compare like with like — local planners’ ceremony packages, and resorts’ own wedding packages — each sourced to a published price list.
Reached publication? No. It was withdrawn during verification, before any page using it went live.
30 Jul 2026 — Kitesurf lesson prices were in the wrong currency and roughly half the real amount
What we held: a beginner kitesurfing course cost “EUR 95–149.”
What was right: USD 150–465, depending on whether tuition is private or shared. A six-hour private course runs $300–465; the same course shared runs $150–260 per person.
How it happened: an unsourced starting value that was wrong in both currency and magnitude, carried in our records without ever being checked against a school’s own price list.
What changed: the figure was corrected against three Paje schools’ published price lists and split into separate private and shared rates, because quoting a single band hid the fact that the two are different products.
Reached publication? No. Caught during the verification pass for the kite lesson price page, before it went live.
30 Jul 2026 — The mandatory Zanzibar insurance was quoted in rupees; it is charged in US dollars
What we held: the compulsory Zanzibar inbound travel insurance cost “about INR 3,700 per visitor.”
What was right: the charge is levied in US dollars, not rupees. Our current figure is USD 44 per adult for 92 days, with USD 22 for ages 3–17 and no charge under 3 — and we are still seeking that tariff in writing from the insurer before we state it as settled.
Why it matters more than it looks: a rupee price implies a fixed rupee cost. The real cost to an Indian traveller moves with the exchange rate on the day. Any rupee figure we publish for this in future will carry the rate we used and the date of that rate, and will be labelled as a conversion rather than the price.
How it happened: an unsourced starting value that mis-stated the unit.
Reached publication? No. Caught before the India money guide went live — which is why that guide is still unpublished.
What we changed about how we work
Three of the four entries above came from the same cause: a number entered our records without a source and was never challenged before it was written into a page. So:
- No figure publishes without a source, a method and a date attached to it in the sentence you read.
- A page cannot go live while any figure it cites from our ledger is unconfirmed, or while any draft claim still carries its verify marker. Both checks are enforced automatically, not by memory.
- Where a source disclaims its own numbers as estimates or “approximate”, we do not treat them as prices. We have rejected sources on exactly this basis.
- Where we cannot source something, we say so rather than reaching for a number that looks close enough.