How does Snopes fact-check process work?
Executive summary
Snopes assigns each claim to an editorial staffer who conducts original research and drafts the fact check, using a variety of verification techniques tailored to the claim’s type — from image analysis to legislative text review [1] [2]. Results are presented with a nuanced, multi-point rating scale and documented sourcing; Snopes also publishes corrections and updates when its reporting or ratings change [3] [1].
1. How a claim reaches a reporter: assignment and scope
Snopes’ own description says there is no single, one-size-fits-all method because the material it examines ranges from digitally altered images to statutory text; instead, each item is assigned to a member of the editorial staff who performs preliminary research and writes the first draft [1]. The site’s long archives and active fact-check feed show the practical result of that workflow: thousands of discrete investigations into urban legends, rumors, news items and obscure viral posts [4] [5].
2. The editorial toolbox: techniques and training
Reporters use a toolkit of common verification techniques that Snopes has openly shared in how‑to guides — reverse image searches, archival research, public-records checks and direct sourcing — and the outlet explicitly encourages readers to learn those methods as part of combating misinformation [2]. Snopes has also built product features like FactBot to help surface existing checks from its archives, reflecting a blended approach of human investigation and technological assistance [6] [7].
3. How verdicts are framed: the rating system
Rather than a binary true/false label, Snopes uses a five-point rating scale — True, Mostly True, Mixture, Mostly False and False — plus additional categories such as Outdated, Miscaptioned and Satire to capture nuance; the site emphasizes that the exact wording of the “Claim” statement is what the rating evaluates [3] [8]. This graded approach is meant to avoid oversimplifying complex or evolving claims and to help readers quickly gauge credibility while preserving context [3].
4. Transparency, corrections and accountability
Snopes states it will promptly correct factual errors and explain rating changes in an “Update” box at the foot of articles; readers can submit corrections through a contact form, though the site notes it may not reply individually to every inquiry because of volume [1]. The organization also publishes an About/Transparency page describing its history and standards, asserting compliance with the International Fact-Checking Network’s (IFCN) standards [9] [4].
5. Institutional reach and partnerships
Snopes’ work has been integrated into larger platforms and research: it has been used in third‑party tools and cited in RAND and platform partnerships historically (for instance, Facebook has used Snopes as a fact-checker in the past), and Snopes’ archive has been the subject of academic study and tools that aim to combat disinformation [10] [4]. The site’s longevity — starting in the 1990s as the Urban Legends Reference Pages and growing into a major archive — underpins its broad presence as a reference resource [9].
6. External evaluations and disagreement among fact-checkers
Data-driven research comparing Snopes with other fact-checkers finds substantial—but not complete—agreement: a Harvard Kennedy School study comparing Snopes and PolitiFact noted that about 70% of matched claims received identical ratings, while roughly 30% diverged, a difference attributed to timing, claim phrasing and rating frameworks [11]. Independent reporting also highlights that different checkers use different rating taxonomies — Snopes’ five-point scale versus PolitiFact’s Truth‑O‑Meter — which can produce apparent contradictions even when both rely on similar evidence [8].
7. Limits, hidden agendas and what reporting doesn’t show
Snopes publicly frames itself as an evidence-first site and discloses organizational background and correction practices, but some critiques emerge indirectly from comparisons with peers: methodological variance and differences in wording can lead to divergent conclusions, and academic audits surface those gaps without asserting malfeasance [11] [8]. The sources provided document Snopes’ stated policies and external evaluations, but they do not offer a detailed, step‑by‑step playbook for every investigative technique the staff might use in a particular report, which Snopes itself acknowledges [1].