Correction: Why Analysts Spend 80% of Their Time Cleaning Bad Data
Corrected by Emir Baycan · Full-Stack Developer, Mobile App Builder and Web Platform Founder with expertise in SEO, automation, SaaS, AI visibility, DevOps and scalable digital products
Emir Baycan found something wrong, outdated, or unsupported on this page and proposed a fix. The publisher accepted the correction.
- Role
- Correction
- Publisher
- When Notes Fly
- Topic
- Data Analytics
- Status
- Accepted
- Date
- 29 July 2026
The exact change
Article attributed a specific real-sounding statistic to a specific named expert and publication venue that could not be verified as the actual source.
Corrected the attribution to the real source (Fetzer and Graeber's study) and the real metric it measured (additional infections, not contacts not notified), while preserving the accurate core statistic of 15,841 dropped cases.
Suggested change
See before/after.
Why this is better
A real number from a real study was reattributed to a different real expert and a fabricated publication venue, the same fabrication pattern found across this batch of legacy articles.
How this record is verified
- The contribution is tied to a real, identified contributor, not an anonymous byline.
- It counts only because the publisher, When Notes Fly, accepted it. Self-claimed work earns nothing.
- It is recorded against a specific page and cannot be bought or edited after the fact.