How does Snopes' fact-checking methodology compare to PolitiFact and FactCheck.org?

1. Rating scales and verdict granularity: how the meters differ

Snopes uses a five-point scale—True, Mostly True, Mixture, Mostly False and False—and also applies labels such as Outdated, Miscaptioned and Satire, giving it flexibility for non-binary folklore and media-accuracy issues ^[2]; PolitiFact operates a six-point "Truth-O-Meter" from True down to Pants on Fire, a scale designed for granular political claims ^{[2] [6]}; FactCheck.org typically asserts whether a statement is true, false or somewhere in between but often qualifies its ruling with extended context rather than a fixed visual meter, a practice that reflects its scholarly-style explanations ^[7]. These differences in scaling—and the extra categories Snopes keeps for memes or miscaptioning—are a common cause of mismatched labels even when checkers investigate the same underlying claim ^{[2] [1]}.

2. Claim selection and topical focus: what each shop tends to check

PolitiFact concentrates on political statements by public figures and campaigns and has explicit newsroom partnerships that guide topical selection ^{[8] [6]}; Snopes began as an urban-legend and folklore tracker and evolved into a broader myth- and media‑claim checker, which informs why it often handles viral memes and miscaptioned images alongside political assertions ^{[9] [6]}; FactCheck.org is anchored in monitoring major U.S. political players with an emphasis on careful context and often relies heavily on government data and expert interpretation, visible in its SciCheck strand that targets scientific and policy claims ^{[3] [7]}. Researchers flag that different selection criteria—what each outlet decides is worth checking—drive much of the non-overlap in which claims are analyzed across organizations ^[5].

3. Institutional model, funding and perceived authority

FactCheck.org is a nonprofit project of the University of Pennsylvania’s Annenberg Public Policy Center, which gives it an academic institutional home and access to scholarly resources ^{[10] [3]}; PolitiFact is a newsroom-based effort tied to the Tampa Bay Times and state partners, operating like a journalistic enterprise with newsroom principles such as independence and transparency ^{[8] [11]}; Snopes is the oldest large-scale online myth-busting site with roots in folklore investigation and later-expanded reach, a history that shapes its brand as a public research companion rather than a university-backed project ^[9]. Those institutional differences affect resourcing, emphasis on transparency practices, and how each organization frames findings for readers ^{[9] [3]}.

4. Agreement, divergence, and why they usually converge

A data-driven study that scraped 22,349 articles from Snopes and PolitiFact found high agreement between the two organizations—only one outright conflicting verdict among 749 matching claims after accounting for rating-system granularity—suggesting consistent practices across outlets despite different form factors ^{[1] [12]}. Penn State and HKS coverage of that work emphasizes that apparent disagreements often stem from timing, claim selection, or the mechanics of different rating scales rather than substantive methodological malpractice ^{[2] [4]}. Other comparative research stresses that sampling choices and scaling decisions matter: checkers often agree on bottom-line veracity even when framing or granularity differs ^{[5] [13]}.

5. Practical takeaways and limits of the evidence

For consumers, the practical implication is that Snopes, PolitiFact and FactCheck.org are broadly reliable and tend to corroborate each other on major claims, but users should expect different presentation styles—meters, context-heavy prose or niche labels—that influence perception ^{[1] [2] [7]}. Comparative research cited here examines selection, scaling and agreement up to August 2022 and focuses on Snopes, PolitiFact and a small set of other checkers; it does not fully catalog every internal editorial policy, nor does it resolve all edge-case disagreements—those require reading the individual fact-checks and their sourcing to understand nuance ^{[1] [5]}. The most defensible conclusion from the reviewed reporting is that methodology differences are real and meaningful for interpretation, but they rarely imply outright contradiction among these major fact-checkers ^{[4] [1]}.