Fact check: How does factually.co select and verify the facts it presents?

1. What the application requirements tell us about selection: clues from hiring criteria

The public application requirements indicate that fact‑checkers must have at least two years of fact‑checking experience and verifiable contacts, which signals that Factually.co values demonstrated expertise and accountability when selecting personnel to evaluate claims. Those hiring standards imply a gatekeeping function to ensure that people choosing and verifying facts have prior experience and can be held accountable by third parties, which is consistent with hiring practices at other outlets aiming for reliability ^[1]. The presence of explicit experience thresholds and contactability requirements suggests an organizational preference for established standards of professional practice rather than ad hoc contributors, and this approach typically correlates with more consistent selection of claims and higher standards of verification in output.

2. How industry peers select claims — monitoring and editorial priorities

FactCheck.org and similar organizations reveal a pattern for claim selection that likely mirrors Factually.co’s practical priorities: monitoring high‑visibility sources such as political speeches, TV ads, and official statements and prioritizing claims with potential public impact or widespread circulation. FactCheck.org explicitly monitors Sunday talk shows, C‑SPAN, presidential remarks, and campaign communications to identify potentially misleading claims and focuses resources on high‑stakes subjects, notably presidential and top Senate races during election cycles ^[3]. This shows that selection is not random but driven by editorial judgment about public importance, verifiability, and potential to mislead, and it explains why fact‑checkers concentrate on claims where verification can meaningfully reduce public deception.

3. Verification methods reported by established fact‑checkers that inform likely practices

Established methodologies emphasize primary sources, nonpartisan government data, and outside expert consultation as the backbone of verification work; these are used at FactCheck.org and described in Factly.in’s methodology that aligns with the International Fact‑Checking Network principles ^{[3] [2]}. Verification typically involves cross‑checking official records, citing original documents, soliciting responses from claimants, and applying multi‑layered editorial review to catch errors before publication ^[3]. These practices point to a standard where assertions are tested against original and authoritative data, and where conclusions are subject to internal review and public correction mechanisms — elements that would be essential to any credible process Factually.co might adopt.

4. Tools and networks that augment selection and verification — automation and third‑party validators

Beyond staff work, the fact‑checking ecosystem increasingly relies on automated tools and external validators — ClaimBuster for identification, Climate Feedback for specialized vetting, and the International Fact‑Checking Network for standards and certification — which broaden capacity to detect, prioritize, and independently assess claims ^[4]. The existence of these tools suggests that a modern fact‑checking operation like Factually.co would plausibly combine human editorial judgment with algorithmic triage and external peer review to scale selection and verification, particularly when facing high volumes of digital misinformation. These networks also create accountability pathways that reinforce methodological consistency across organizations.

5. Where the record is thin and what’s missing to fully answer the question

No provided source gives a direct, dated statement of Factually.co’s internal editorial policies, selection algorithms, or correction protocols, so any conclusion about Factually.co specifically must be inferred from adjacent practices and hiring clues ^{[1] [3]}. The absence of an explicit, publicly documented methodology for Factually.co is a significant information gap: to fully confirm how it selects and verifies facts one would need a published methodology page, transparency reports, or third‑party assessments linking the organization to recognized standards. Until Factually.co publishes its own process or is independently reviewed, the most defensible account synthesizes hiring requirements with the well‑documented procedures of peer organizations and the broader toolsets used in the field ^{[1] [2] [3] [4] [5]}.