Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
Fact check: Who runs this site?
Executive Summary
The available analyses do not identify a single definitive operator for “this site”; instead, they reveal multiple candidate operators and contexts depending on which pages or excerpts are under consideration. Analyses tied to the Legal Entity Ownership Program point to management by the California Board of Equalization, while other analyses link pages to the Yahoo brand family and to Google/Ahrefs properties, demonstrating fragmentary evidence and conflicting site ownership signals [1] [2] [3].
1. Why the answers diverge: fragmented content points to different site operators
The dataset presents discrete analyses of different pages, not a single contiguous site, which explains the conflicting attributions. Three entries focus on California’s Legal Entity Ownership Program and consistently note program management by the Board of Equalization; those entries were dated 2025-11-07 and describe program administration and reporting procedures rather than site ownership explicitly [4] [5] [1]. In contrast, another cluster of analyses references the Yahoo brand family, indicating a commercial media operator and privacy/cookie policies typical of a corporate portal [2]. A third cluster links to Google search guidance and an Ahrefs-hosted article, suggesting either documentation about site operators or third-party SEO commentary [6] [7] [3]. These mixed-topic analyses mean you are looking at different pages that naturally have different responsible organizations.
2. Evidence pointing to a government operator: Board of Equalization and LEOP
The strongest direct claim of an operator in the provided material is that the Legal Entity Ownership Program (LEOP) is managed by the California Board of Equalization, as noted in multiple analyses dated November 7, 2025 [1]. Those summaries emphasize the program’s purpose — reporting changes in control or ownership of entities with California real property — and administrative responsibilities, which are typical of a state agency-hosted site. The content scope in those entries centers on legal definitions, reassessment rules, and reporting processes, which aligns with government stewardship rather than a commercial publisher [4] [5].
3. Evidence pointing to a commercial operator: Yahoo brand family signals
A separate analysis explicitly states that a page is part of the Yahoo brand family, listing Yahoo, AOL, Engadget, In The Know, and MAKERS, and highlighting privacy and cookie policy framing [2]. That analysis is dated October 20, 2025, and reads like a corporate site attribution rather than government documentation. The presence of branding and privacy policy language suggests a commercial, ad-supported publisher model, which implies different ownership and operational practices than the Board of Equalization pages. This cluster demonstrates how identical queries about “who runs this site” can produce contradictory attributions depending on which page is in scope.
4. Evidence pointing to search/SEO contexts: Google and Ahrefs references
The third group of analyses references guidance about Google Search operators and Google News discovery, plus an Ahrefs article on search operators (one dated March 8, 2024) [6] [7] [3]. These summaries do not assert site ownership but indicate content about how search engines treat site operators and how webmasters can help index content. The presence of such materials suggests either that the page in question is guidance for webmasters or that SEO resources are being conflated with an actual site operator. That distinction matters: operator attribution based on SEO documentation is indirect and not equivalent to asserting ownership.
5. What’s missing and why that matters for attribution
None of the provided analyses include a definitive site-level contact, “About Us,” ownership metadata, or DNS/WHOIS evidence tying a single domain clearly to one organization. The excerpts instead summarize topical content — program FAQs, job postings, privacy notices, and SEO guides — which are insufficient to assert single ownership. The absence of a direct publisher statement or a consistent favicon/domain reference in the analysis set is a key omission that prevents a conclusive identification of “who runs this site” across all examined pages [4] [2] [6].
6. Reconciling the signals: plausible explanations and agendas
Three plausible explanations reconcile the signal mix: the dataset aggregates multiple unrelated pages from different domains; a single publisher hosts diverse content types (government pages, commercial media, and SEO guidance) via partnerships or subdomains; or automated crawlers misattributed content snippets to the wrong source. Each explanation carries potential agendas: government pages aim at compliance and transparency [1], media pages serve advertising and audience growth [2], and SEO guides aim to drive traffic and consulting leads [3]. These agendas explain why excerpts emphasize different metadata and why the same query yields conflicting operator attributions.
7. Practical next steps to get a definitive answer
To conclusively identify who runs the specific page you have in mind, consult the page’s footer or “About/Contact” section, check domain WHOIS and SSL certificate registrant data, and compare canonical URLs and HTTP headers for publisher metadata — steps not present in the provided analyses. If you can supply the exact URL or a screenshot of the page’s footer, I can re-evaluate the same analyses and point to the most direct evidence of ownership among the previously noted candidates [4] [2] [3].