Facts Checker

Facts Checker helps you publish verifiable fact-check markup in minutes

Built for newsrooms, investigative desks, and research teams that need clean ClaimReview JSON-LD plus citation-oriented structured data that mirrors real sources.

Fact-Check & Citation Source Schema Generator

Enter the claim you evaluated and the evidence source you rely on. Facts Checker outputs JSON-LD you can paste into your page to document the review and its citations.

Ready

Frequently asked questions

ClaimReview is a schema.org type that describes a fact-check of a specific claim. It helps search systems understand what was claimed, what evidence was used, and how the claim was rated. For publishers, it can clarify editorial intent and connect an article to a transparent review methodology.

Use ClaimReview to describe the fact-check itself, including the claim text and your rating. Use citation-oriented structured data to point to the primary evidence, datasets, official statements, or peer-reviewed sources that support your conclusion. Together they reinforce provenance and make the relationship between claim, review, and evidence easier to interpret.

No tool can guarantee rich results. Eligibility depends on content quality, site reputation, technical correctness, and Google policies. This generator helps you produce standards-aligned JSON-LD, but you must implement it carefully, keep it consistent with visible content, and maintain strong editorial standards.

Why Use Fact-Check & Citation Source Schema Generator?

Speed

News cycles compress decisions into minutes, and manual schema drafting steals time from verification. Facts Checker turns your claim, rating, and evidence URL into ready JSON-LD so your team can publish faster without wrestling with nested objects. The layout separates inputs from output so producers can validate fields quickly, regenerate after edits, and move straight to implementation. Speed here is not shortcuts on accuracy. It is operational efficiency that keeps structured data aligned with the same sentences readers see on the page. When verification updates, you can re-run the generator and replace markup in one pass.

Security

Fact-check teams handle sensitive tips, ongoing investigations, and legally delicate claims. This page generates markup locally in your browser and does not send your claim text to a server for processing. That reduces accidental data exposure while you iterate on wording. You still control hosting, access controls, and editorial review. Treat the output as publishing code: store it securely, version it with your CMS, and restrict who can edit live templates. Strong security is also a workflow habit: confirm URLs are HTTPS, avoid pasting confidential material into shared screenshots, and keep audit logs for major rating changes.

Quality

Quality in structured data means consistency between visible journalism and machine-readable facts. Facts Checker prompts for the claim string, the rating label, the publisher, and the evidence source so your ClaimReview block reads like a disciplined editorial record. The citation snippet reinforces provenance by pointing to the URL you relied on, which helps readers and systems trace conclusions back to primary material. Better quality reduces ambiguous fields, avoids mismatched dates, and discourages vague ratings that cannot be defended in an editorial review. Your newsroom standards still rule, but the generator nudges completeness.

SEO

Search engines reward clarity, consistency, and trustworthy topical coverage. ClaimReview markup can help communicate that a URL contains a documented review of a claim rather than an opinion post without methodology. Citation-oriented JSON-LD strengthens entity relationships between your article, the claim, and external evidence. SEO gains are never guaranteed, yet technical precision removes friction for crawlers and aligns with helpful content expectations. Pair markup with internal linking, author bios, corrections policies, and transparent sourcing to support long-term visibility for fact-check archives.

Who Is This For?

Bloggers

Independent bloggers who debunk viral posts need credibility signals without a full engineering team. Facts Checker helps you paste ClaimReview JSON-LD next to your analysis so your claim, rating, and primary source URL are explicit. That matters when a paragraph travels across social platforms and readers want to know what was actually checked. Use the generator after you finalize language, then keep the rating consistent with your headline and lede.

Developers

Developers supporting CMS workflows can use the tool to prototype schema quickly before automating fields. The JSON-LD output shows how ClaimReview and citation objects nest in practice, which speeds template design for news APIs and static publishers. You can map form fields to database columns, validate URLs at build time, and inject the graph into article pages with confidence that the structure matches schema.org expectations.

Digital Marketers

Digital marketers working with publishers can align content strategy with verifiable trust packaging. When a campaign points to a fact-check hub, ClaimReview markup clarifies what each URL does in the ecosystem. Marketers can coordinate on consistent naming for ratings, ensure evidence links match UTMs without breaking canonical URLs, and document methodology pages that the structured data references.

The ultimate guide to Fact-Check & Citation Source Schema Generator

What this tool is

Facts Checker is a structured data assistant for fact-check publishing. It focuses on two practical needs that often arrive together in a newsroom. First, you must describe the claim you evaluated and the conclusion you reached in a machine-readable way. Second, you must point to the evidence that a reasonable reader would accept as the basis for that conclusion. The generator collects the claim text, your review rating, publishing metadata, and a primary evidence URL, then returns JSON-LD composed of a ClaimReview graph and a complementary citation-oriented graph.

The ClaimReview portion follows schema.org semantics so your page can declare a review of a claim with a rating object and an item reviewed structure. The citation portion models the evidence as a creative work with a URL and name so the relationship between your fact-check article and the external source is explicit. The tool is intentionally conservative. It does not invent sources, rewrite claims, or choose ratings for you. It translates editorial decisions you already made into technical code you can audit.

If you are new to JSON-LD, think of it as a small data file embedded in the page that repeats key facts in a predictable vocabulary. Search engines and other consumers can parse that vocabulary without guessing what your headings mean. Facts Checker keeps the graph small on purpose. A compact graph is easier to review, easier to diff in Git, and easier to explain to your compliance team than a sprawling bundle of loosely related entities.

Experienced teams often graduate from manual snippets to CMS automation. Even then, a generator remains valuable as a reference implementation. Engineers can compare automated output against a known-good graph, while reporters can prototype markup before engineering finishes the integration. The tool therefore supports both beginners learning ClaimReview for the first time and advanced teams validating an edge case during a major investigation.

Why it matters

Misinformation scales faster than manual moderation. Publishers respond with transparent methodology, named authors, and clear sourcing. Structured data is not a substitute for integrity, yet it is a modern layer of communication between your newsroom and the platforms that distribute your work. When ClaimReview markup is accurate and aligned with visible text, it reduces ambiguity about what was checked and how it was rated.

Citation graphs matter because fact-checks fail when evidence is implied but not retrievable. A strong citation URL helps readers verify your reasoning and helps systems group content with the entities and documents it depends on. For researchers, the same markup discipline supports reproducibility. For SEO strategy, the win is indirect but real: clearer semantics support helpful content signals and reduce mismatches that create distrust signals.

Public understanding of misinformation is not only a content problem. It is also an information architecture problem. Readers should be able to trace a bold sentence back to a method and a source. Structured data does not replace that journey, but it can make the journey easier to maintain at scale, especially for archives with thousands of published reviews.

News organizations also face platform distribution realities. When your article is summarized elsewhere, metadata may be the only part some systems read reliably. That is one more reason to keep ClaimReview fields aligned with what your journalists are willing to defend in public. A generator cannot create that willingness, but it can reduce accidental mismatches between departments.

How to use it effectively

Start by writing the claim in plain language that matches what appears in the body of your article. Avoid hedging words that are not in the claim itself unless they are essential to faithful quotation. Select a rating that your editorial policy can defend, and keep a human review step for legally sensitive topics. Add the strongest primary evidence URL you rely on, such as an official PDF, dataset landing page, court filing repository, or primary transcript.

Fill in publisher organization and the canonical fact-check URL before generating. Use an ISO date that matches your published timestamp in your CMS. After you generate JSON-LD, validate with Google Rich Results tests and schema validators, then place the script in the head or body as your platform recommends. If you update the rating or claim wording, regenerate and replace the block. Version control your templates so you can trace when markup changed and why.

Consider pairing your publishing workflow with an editorial checklist. Confirm that the evidence URL resolves, that the publisher name matches your organization standards, and that the rating label appears in the body copy near the top of the article. Many teams also keep a short table that maps each rating label to a plain-language definition. That table becomes the single source of truth for both writers and engineers.

If you syndicate content, remember that structured data should travel with the canonical version of the article. Syndication partners may strip scripts or alter HTML. Establish contracts or technical guardrails so ClaimReview markup remains accurate wherever the piece is republished. When in doubt, prefer the URL on your owned domain as the canonical fact-check destination.

Common mistakes to avoid

The most common mistake is drift between what users see and what markup claims. If the visible article discusses a broader topic but the ClaimReview text narrows to a different assertion, you create inconsistency. Another mistake is treating ratings as vibes rather than definitions. Your newsroom should map each label to criteria and examples. A third mistake is linking to evidence that does not support the specific claim, which undermines trust and can confuse automated systems.

Technical mistakes matter too. Broken URLs, missing HTTPS on modern sites, wrong dates, and duplicate conflicting JSON-LD blocks on the same page can all create noise. Avoid stacking multiple ClaimReview objects unless each one corresponds to a clearly separated review. Finally, do not paste markup and forget corrections. If you issue a correction, update both the article text and the structured data so they tell the same story.

Another subtle failure mode is mixing fact-check markup with unrelated product schema on the same URL in ways that confuse the primary intent of the page. If a page is primarily a product review, do not slap ClaimReview on it unless the page truly performs a claim-specific fact-check. Misclassified structured data can undermine trust because it signals a mismatch between what the page claims to be and what it actually contains.

If you work with attorneys, involve them early when claims concern ongoing litigation, medical advice, or election processes. Structured data is part of the published record. The generator helps with syntax, but your organization owns the legal framing, the corrections policy, and the decision to publish.

How it works

1

Enter the claim

Type the exact claim you are reviewing so the structured data matches your reporting.

2

Add evidence metadata

Provide the evidence URL and a clear title so citation JSON-LD points to the source readers should trust.

3

Set rating and publishing facts

Choose the review rating, publisher name, canonical URL, and publish date for a complete ClaimReview record.

4

Generate and implement

Copy the JSON-LD bundle, validate it, and embed it on your fact-check page.

About Facts Checker

Facts Checker builds lightweight utilities for publishers who want verification to show up not only in paragraphs, but also in precise machine-readable signals. We focus on practical schema generation that mirrors how newsrooms already think: claim, evidence, rating, responsibility.

Our goal is to reduce friction between reporters, editors, and technologists so structured data stays accurate over time. When markup is easy to regenerate, teams update it more often, and that consistency protects credibility.

Facts Checker Journal

Deep dives on ClaimReview markup, evidence linking, and publishing workflows for trustworthy news.

What is Fact-Check & Citation Source Schema Generator and why every investigative editor needs it

Meta description: Learn why a ClaimReview and citation JSON-LD generator belongs in modern investigative workflows, from speed to auditability.

Estimated read time: 11 minutes

The hidden cost of hand-coded structured data

Investigative editors are judged by accuracy, speed, and transparency. Yet the publishing stack often introduces a silent bottleneck: structured data markup. When a team hand-writes JSON-LD during a breaking story, small syntax errors and inconsistent fields creep in. Those issues do not always break the page, but they can misrepresent what was reviewed, blur evidence links, or create conflicting dates across templates.

What the generator changes in daily publishing

Fact-Check & Citation Source Schema Generator standardizes the core objects that most fact-check articles need. You enter the claim text you stand behind, the rating label your policy defines, and the evidence URL that supports your conclusion. The output includes ClaimReview JSON-LD plus a citation-oriented graph that names the source. That combination helps your article communicate both the review decision and the provenance trail.

Editorial governance still comes first

No generator replaces editorial judgment. The tool does not verify sources for you, does not decide legal risk, and does not choose headlines. Instead, it enforces a disciplined mapping from editorial inputs to technical outputs. The benefit is auditability. When a reader or competitor questions a rating, your records align: the claim string in markup matches the claim string in the story, and the evidence URL resolves to the document you cite.

A practical rollout plan for newsrooms

Start with a pilot desk that publishes frequent fact-checks. Train producers to regenerate JSON-LD after every correction. Pair the workflow with a checklist for URLs, dates, and rating definitions. Measure reductions in validation errors and time spent in CMS tickets. Expand once editors trust the pattern.

As the pilot matures, document a short style guide for claim phrasing. The guide should include examples of acceptable paraphrases versus unacceptable distortions. It should also specify how to handle evolving claims when new evidence arrives. The generator will faithfully encode what you type, which means editorial discipline upstream remains the quality control mechanism.

Finally, connect the pilot to your analytics and search teams with a shared vocabulary. When everyone uses the same rating definitions, it becomes easier to review dashboards, interpret trends, and explain decisions to leadership. Structured data becomes a cross-functional asset rather than a siloed technical chore.

Ready to generate markup for your next story? Return to Home and scroll to the generator: Open the tool section.

Fact-Check & Citation Source Schema Generator vs manual alternatives: which saves more time?

Meta description: Compare manual JSON-LD drafting with Facts Checker’s guided ClaimReview and citation output for faster, cleaner publishing.

Estimated read time: 10 minutes

Manual drafting looks cheap until you count the rework

Manual structured data feels flexible because you can type anything. In practice, teams copy old templates, search for braces, and hope the nesting still matches schema.org. When a field changes name or a required relationship shifts, every copied snippet becomes technical debt. Rework shows up as validator failures, search console warnings, and frantic fixes during major events.

Where the generator wins: repeatable structure

Fact-Check & Citation Source Schema Generator removes guesswork for the common path. Claim text maps to claimReviewed. Rating labels map to reviewRating. Publisher and date map to accountable metadata. Evidence URL maps to a citation graph that names the creative work you rely on. The time savings compound when multiple producers work shifts and need the same predictable shape.

Where manual work still remains necessary

Complex investigations may need custom fields, multiple claims, or cross-border legal review. You might extend JSON-LD with additional nodes for authors, speakable summaries, or related articles. The generator is not a full CMS integration. It is a fast baseline that reduces errors for the standard single-claim article.

A simple decision rule

If you publish more than a handful of fact-checks monthly, a guided generator pays off immediately. If you publish rarely but under high scrutiny, the generator still pays off by reducing inconsistency. If you have automated schema from a bespoke pipeline, you may only use the tool for prototyping. Choose based on error rates and time-to-publish, not ideology.

Teams sometimes underestimate rework costs because structured data errors do not always surface immediately. They may appear weeks later during an audit, a platform change, or a competitor’s critique. A generator reduces the chance that a rushed publish introduces a subtle mismatch between claim text and reviewRating labels.

Manual workflows can still be appropriate for experimental schema or novel story formats. In those cases, use manual drafting for exploration, then return to a repeatable template once the format stabilizes. Facts Checker fits the stabilized path best, where consistency and speed matter more than one-off creativity.

Generate a fresh JSON-LD bundle now: Open the tool section.

How to use Fact-Check & Citation Source Schema Generator to improve your SEO in 2026

Meta description: A 2026-focused SEO approach to ClaimReview and citation JSON-LD that prioritizes clarity, consistency, and trustworthy entity signals.

Estimated read time: 12 minutes

SEO in 2026 rewards transparent expertise

Search systems continue to emphasize helpful content, strong entity understanding, and reliable sourcing. Fact-check hubs benefit when each URL has a crisp purpose. ClaimReview markup signals that a page evaluates a claim with a methodology and a rating, not a generic opinion column. Citation JSON-LD reinforces the evidentiary backbone by linking to external documents.

Build a consistent rating vocabulary

SEO friction appears when titles, visible badges, and structured data disagree. Define labels like true, false, partly true, missing context, and unverified with examples. Train writers to pick labels before generating JSON-LD. Facts Checker encodes the label you choose into reviewRating so your page aligns with your visible summary.

Strengthen internal linking around methodology

Structured data works best when humans can find the same story. Link fact-check articles to methodology pages, author bios, and corrections policies. Use descriptive anchors rather than generic click here phrases. The generator helps with the graph, but site architecture still carries much of the trust signal.

Measure technical health, not vanity snippets

Track validation results, crawl anomalies, and content freshness. Update JSON-LD when you update claims. In 2026, sustainable SEO is operational: fewer errors, faster fixes, clearer semantics. Treat markup as part of editorial maintenance, not a one-time launch task.

Consider publishing a transparent methodology hub and linking it from your fact-check articles. A methodology page supports human readers and gives you a stable URL to reference in training materials. When ClaimReview markup aligns with that hub, your site communicates a coherent review process rather than isolated pages.

Also review how your pages render on mobile. If structured data references URLs that mobile users cannot easily open, you may frustrate readers even when validators pass. Practical SEO includes practical usability, especially for evidence links that are central to your conclusion.

Start with structured data generation here: Open the tool section.

Top 5 use cases for Fact-Check & Citation Source Schema Generator you have not thought of

Meta description: Unexpected workflows that benefit from ClaimReview plus citation JSON-LD, from classroom labs to courtroom explainers.

Estimated read time: 11 minutes

Use case one: university media literacy labs

Students learn faster when they connect narrative critique to technical publishing. A lab can assign a claim, require a primary source, and require JSON-LD output that mirrors professional practice. Facts Checker makes the technical portion accessible so instructors focus on evidence quality.

Use case two: NGO rapid response desks

Nonprofits responding to disasters and elections often publish clarification posts under pressure. A generator reduces markup mistakes when staff rotate and sleep shifts are short. Consistent ClaimReview blocks help audiences recognize verified updates.

Use case three: science communication verticals

Science writers frequently correct misleading charts and misread papers. Citation JSON-LD can point to the original study landing page or an official agency explainer. The generator helps communicators keep the evidence pointer explicit.

Use case four: legal explainers that depend on primary documents

When a claim concerns a statute or filing, readers need the primary text. Your fact-check should link to the repository PDF or official index page. The tool encodes that relationship cleanly while ClaimReview captures the review framing.

Use case five: internal newsroom QA before automation

Engineering teams can use the tool as a golden sample when building automated schema from CMS fields. Product managers compare automated output against manual baseline graphs to catch edge cases early.

Another use case is archive migration. When a publisher moves platforms, old templates often break silently. Regenerating representative ClaimReview graphs for sample articles helps QA teams verify that the new CMS exports correct JSON-LD before cutover weekend.

Regardless of use case, treat the generator as part of a broader integrity strategy. Structured data is one layer in a stack that includes sourcing standards, legal review, and community feedback channels. The tool makes the layer cheaper to maintain, not optional.

Try a baseline graph for your next post: Open the tool section.

Common mistakes when documenting fact-checks and how Fact-Check & Citation Source Schema Generator fixes them

Meta description: Avoid claim drift, weak evidence links, and rating ambiguity with a structured workflow grounded in ClaimReview and citation JSON-LD.

Estimated read time: 12 minutes

Mistake one: the headline claim does not match ClaimReview text

Readers feel misled when the structured claim is narrower or broader than the headline implies. The generator encourages you to paste the claim string you are willing to defend, then keep headline and body aligned with that string.

Mistake two: evidence links to commentary, not primary material

Secondary summaries are useful, but a fact-check should anchor to primary sources when possible. The citation graph includes URL and name fields that push teams to be explicit about what the evidence object represents.

Mistake three: ratings without definitions

Ambiguous labels destroy trust. Your policy should define each rating with examples. The tool encodes the label you select, which forces a deliberate choice at generation time.

Mistake four: stale dates after updates

Investigations evolve. If you change conclusions, update dates and ratings together. Regenerating JSON-LD is fast compared to hunting for stale fields inside legacy templates.

Another mistake is treating evidence title fields as decorative. A strong title helps humans scanning your page and helps maintain clarity when URLs change. Use titles that identify the document type and authority, not vague labels like link or source.

If your organization publishes in multiple languages, decide whether the ClaimReview claim text matches the primary language of the article or a translation. Mixing languages without a deliberate policy can confuse both readers and downstream systems. Align your structured data language strategy with your broader localization standards.

Generate a clean replacement block: Open the tool section.

About Facts Checker

Our Mission

Facts Checker exists to make honest journalism easier to publish in formats that modern platforms understand. We believe verification should be visible in plain language and reflected faithfully in structured data. Our mission is to reduce accidental errors in JSON-LD, shorten the distance between reporters and developers, and help small publishers adopt practices that large newsrooms pioneered.

We focus on tools that respect editorial independence. Software should not decide what is true. It should help teams document what they concluded, why they concluded it, and which sources support the conclusion. That documentation ethic protects readers and strengthens public accountability.

We also care about sustainability. Free tools lower barriers for students, local outlets, and NGOs that cannot fund bespoke engineering. When more publishers publish consistent ClaimReview markup, the ecosystem becomes easier to audit at scale.

Our work sits at the intersection of editorial standards and technical implementation. Reporters are trained to ask who, what, when, where, why, and how. Structured data asks similar questions, but in a vocabulary machines can parse reliably. Facts Checker is built to keep those two vocabularies aligned so organizations do not accidentally tell one story to humans and a different story to crawlers.

We recognize that trust is earned through corrections, transparency, and time. Tools cannot manufacture trust. They can only reduce friction for teams that already care. We aim to be a dependable utility for those teams, whether they publish once a month or twenty times a day.

What We Build

Our flagship utility on this site is the Fact-Check & Citation Source Schema Generator. It targets a routine pain point: translating a completed fact-check into standards-aligned JSON-LD. Users provide a claim, a rating, publishing metadata, and a primary evidence URL. The tool returns ClaimReview structured data alongside citation-oriented structured data that names the external source.

The audience includes bloggers validating viral posts, developers wiring CMS templates, marketers coordinating trust messaging, and educators teaching media literacy through production skills. We aim for clarity in the interface and conservative defaults in the output so teams can extend graphs when needed.

We iterate based on real constraints: tight deadlines, mixed technical skill on editorial desks, and the need for outputs that validators accept. If a feature increases complexity without increasing clarity, we are skeptical. If a feature reduces error rates or makes training easier, we prioritize it.

Long term, we want Facts Checker to remain a credible reference point in conversations about fact-check publishing. That requires restraint in marketing claims, responsiveness to good-faith bug reports, and continuous attention to accessibility and readability.

Our Values

Privacy

Privacy is a practice, not a slogan. We design utilities so sensitive drafting can stay local to the user’s browser whenever feasible. We also publish explicit policies about analytics and advertising technologies so users can make informed choices. We encourage publishers to treat evidence URLs and claim text as editorial material that deserves access control in internal systems.

Speed

Speed means respectful performance and fast iteration cycles for producers. A sluggish tool wastes attention during breaking news. A fast generator reduces the temptation to skip structured data altogether. We optimize for quick regeneration when stories update, because corrections are part of integrity.

Quality

Quality is alignment between words on the page and code in the template. We emphasize fields that reduce ambiguity and encourage validators to pass. Quality also means accessible layouts, readable typography, and touch targets that work for mobile editors reviewing copy on phones.

Accessibility

Accessibility includes keyboard navigation, readable contrast, and clear component labels. Trust tools should be usable by disabled journalists and readers. We treat WCAG-oriented design as a baseline, not an optional polish layer.

Our Commitment to Free Tools

We maintain free utilities because public interest publishing should not require expensive software for basic structured data. Free access comes with transparency: we may show ads or use analytics to understand performance, but we aim to keep the generator itself available without a paywall. If you rely on Facts Checker for teaching or local news, you can count on the core workflow remaining approachable.

We also believe free tools should be honest tools. That means clear limitations, conservative claims about SEO outcomes, and policies that explain data practices in plain language. When tradeoffs exist between monetization and user trust, we bias toward disclosures users can understand.

If you represent a newsroom coalition or educational institution, we welcome feedback on what would make structured data training easier. The best requests include concrete examples of CMS constraints, sample URLs, and validator errors you want to eliminate.

Contact & Feedback

We welcome corrections, feature suggestions, and partnership ideas. Email haithemhamtinee@gmail.com with enough context that we can reproduce your suggestion or issue.

If you are reporting a policy concern, include the page name and what you believe should change. If you are reporting a technical issue, include your browser, operating system, and steps to reproduce. Screenshots and sample JSON-LD are welcome when they help clarify the problem without exposing private material.

Contact Facts Checker

We read thoughtful messages from readers, publishers, educators, and developers. If you need help with Facts Checker tools, want to report a problem, or have a serious proposal, use the email below.

Support email

haithemhamtinee@gmail.com

We typically respond within 24–48 hours.

What to include

Use a clear subject line such as Facts Checker bug, structured data question, or partnership inquiry. In the body, describe what you were doing, what you expected, and what happened instead. If a screenshot helps, attach it. If you reference a specific page, include the URL and timestamp.

Business inquiries vs support requests

Support requests include troubleshooting, clarification about policies, or feedback on the generator output. Business inquiries include sponsorship discussions, data collaborations, or integration proposals. You may use the same email, but different subject lines help us prioritize fairly.

Privacy when you contact us

Email is not a secure channel for highly sensitive whistleblower material. For general questions, avoid sending private information about third parties unless necessary. We use your message to respond and improve services, not to sell your email address.

Privacy Policy

Last updated:

Introduction & Who We Are

This Privacy Policy explains how Facts Checker collects, uses, and shares information when you use our website and tools. Facts Checker provides a web-based generator that helps publishers create JSON-LD structured data for fact-checking content. We want you to understand both the technical realities of running a website and your rights regarding personal data.

Depending on your jurisdiction, privacy laws may grant you additional rights. This policy is written to be useful globally, with a dedicated section on GDPR rights for individuals in the European Economic Area and the United Kingdom where those rights apply.

What Data We Collect

Website inputs: When you use the generator, you type claim text, URLs, titles, and similar fields into your browser. This tool is designed to process those inputs locally to produce JSON-LD output for you to copy. We do not operate a login system on this page as described in this static implementation.

Usage data: Like most sites, our hosting environment may create server logs that can include IP addresses, user agents, timestamps, and requested URLs. We may also use analytics products that collect aggregated usage metrics.

Cookies: We and third-party partners may store cookies and similar technologies on your device for essential functions, analytics, or advertising, as described in our Cookies Policy.

Communications: If you email us, we receive your message content, your email address, and metadata such as delivery time.

Device and browser signals: Your browser may send language preferences, screen characteristics, and compatibility information that helps us deliver a usable layout. These signals are often processed in aggregate and may be combined with analytics platforms to understand device mix and performance issues.

Security monitoring: We may collect technical indicators related to abuse prevention, such as unusual request rates or patterns consistent with automated scraping. This processing is intended to protect service availability for human users and to reduce fraud risk.

How We Use Your Data

We use data to operate the site, measure performance, secure services, respond to inquiries, comply with law, and improve features. Analytics help us understand which pages are useful. Advertising may fund free tools. We do not sell your personal information as a standalone product.

Where GDPR applies, we rely on appropriate legal bases such as consent for non-essential cookies when required, legitimate interests for security and product improvement balanced against your rights, and contractual necessity where we provide support you requested. We aim to minimize data collection to what is relevant for the stated purposes.

We may aggregate or de-identify data so it no longer reasonably identifies you. Aggregated metrics help us understand trends without exposing individual activity. If we publish benchmark-style insights, we do so only after applying reasonable aggregation thresholds.

Cookies & Tracking Technologies

We may use cookies to remember preferences, measure engagement, and deliver ads. You can control many cookies through browser settings. Some essential cookies may be required for basic functionality. For more detail, read the Cookies Policy on this site.

Third-Party Services

We may use Google Analytics to understand traffic patterns and Google AdSense to display advertisements. These services may collect information according to their own policies and may use cookies. You should review Google’s disclosures and opt-out tools if you want additional control.

Your Rights Under GDPR

If GDPR applies, you may have rights to access, rectification, erasure, restriction, portability, and objection, as well as rights related to automated decision-making where applicable. You may also lodge a complaint with a supervisory authority. Contact us to exercise rights and we will respond within reasonable timelines.

Access and rectification: You can request a copy of personal data we hold about you in many cases, and you can request correction of inaccurate data. Some requests may require identity verification to prevent unauthorized disclosure.

Erasure and restriction: You may request deletion where applicable law requires or where data is no longer needed for the original purpose. You may also request restriction of processing in certain disputes while claims are resolved.

Portability and objection: Where applicable, you may request machine-readable portability for data you provided based on contract or consent. You may object to processing based on legitimate interests, subject to compelling grounds on our side or legal claims.

Data Retention

Server logs and analytics data are retained according to provider defaults and our operational needs. Email correspondence may be retained to track support history unless deletion is requested and legally permissible.

International transfers: If data is processed in countries outside your own, we rely on appropriate safeguards where required, such as standard contractual clauses or equivalent mechanisms. Vendor selection and configuration influence where data physically resides.

Security measures: We use reasonable administrative and technical safeguards appropriate to the nature of the service. No online service can guarantee perfect security. If we become aware of a breach that affects you where notification is required, we will follow applicable legal obligations.

Children's Privacy

This site is not directed to children under 13, and we do not knowingly collect personal information from children under 13. If you believe a child provided information, contact us so we can take appropriate steps.

Parents and educators should supervise younger users when they experiment with publishing tools. Even when processing is local to a browser, children may still paste sensitive material. We encourage schools to use controlled environments and institutional accounts when teaching structured data workflows.

Changes to This Policy

We may update this policy to reflect new practices or legal requirements. The last updated date will change when revisions are published. Continued use after updates constitutes acceptance unless applicable law requires additional consent.

Contact Us

Email haithemhamtinee@gmail.com for privacy questions or requests.

If you are a California resident, you may have additional rights under state privacy laws regarding disclosure, deletion, and opting out of certain sharing, subject to exceptions. If you are in another jurisdiction with similar laws, we will respond according to applicable requirements when you contact us with a verifiable request.

Terms of Service

Last updated:

Acceptance of Terms

By accessing Facts Checker, you agree to these Terms of Service. If you do not agree, do not use the site. We may update terms and will indicate changes by updating the last updated date.

You must be legally able to enter a contract in your jurisdiction. If you use the site on behalf of an organization, you represent that you have authority to bind that organization to these terms. Continued use after updates constitutes acceptance unless applicable law requires a different consent mechanism.

Description of Service

Facts Checker provides informational tools and content related to fact-check structured data. The generator produces JSON-LD examples based on user-provided inputs. You are responsible for verifying accuracy, legal compliance, and fitness for your publishing context.

The service may include educational articles, policies, and navigation between informational pages. Features may change as we improve the product. We do not promise that any particular output will remain unchanged across versions, so you should archive outputs you rely on for compliance or editorial records.

Permitted Use & Restrictions

You may use the site for lawful purposes only. You may not attempt to disrupt services, probe for vulnerabilities without authorization, scrape in a way that harms performance, or misuse outputs to deceive users. You may not imply that Facts Checker endorses your conclusions.

You may not use automated means to overload infrastructure, circumvent rate limits where implemented, or attempt to access non-public areas. You may not use generated structured data to misrepresent content, impersonate another publisher, or cloak deceptive pages as fact-checks.

Intellectual Property

Site content, branding, and layout are protected by intellectual property laws. You receive a limited license to use the site for personal or internal business purposes. JSON-LD output is intended for your use in your publishing, subject to your own responsibilities and third-party terms.

Except for the license to use outputs you generate for your publishing, no other rights are granted. Trademarks may not be used to imply affiliation without permission. If you believe content infringes your rights, contact us with detailed information so we can review promptly.

Disclaimers & No Warranties

Services are provided as is. We disclaim warranties to the fullest extent permitted by law. We do not guarantee search engine results, rich snippets, rankings, or uninterrupted availability.

We do not warrant that outputs are complete for every publishing scenario, that schema recommendations will remain stable forever, or that third-party validators will interpret markup identically over time. You remain responsible for final publication decisions.

Limitation of Liability

To the extent permitted by law, Facts Checker and its operators will not be liable for indirect, incidental, special, consequential, or punitive damages, or for loss of profits, data, or goodwill. Your sole remedy may be to stop using the site.

Some jurisdictions do not allow certain limitations. In those jurisdictions, our liability will be limited to the maximum extent permitted. Nothing in these terms excludes liability that cannot be excluded under applicable law.

Cookie Notice & GDPR Compliance

We may use cookies and process data in ways described in our Privacy Policy and Cookies Policy. Where GDPR applies, we aim to honor applicable obligations and user rights.

Links to Third-Party Sites

The site may reference third-party services or link out for convenience. We do not control third-party sites and are not responsible for their content or practices.

Modifications to the Service

We may modify, suspend, or discontinue features to maintain security or improve the product. We may add or remove tooling as needed.

Governing Law

These terms are governed by applicable law without regard to conflict of law principles, except where consumer protections require otherwise. Courts in some jurisdictions may have exclusive jurisdiction over disputes.

If a provision is invalid, the remaining provisions remain enforceable to the fullest extent. Failure to enforce a provision is not a waiver unless stated in writing.

Contact

Email haithemhamtinee@gmail.com for legal or terms questions.

Cookies Policy

Last updated:

What Are Cookies

Cookies are small text files stored on your device when you visit a website. They can help a site remember preferences, keep sessions stable, measure analytics, or support advertising. Cookies can be first-party or third-party, session or persistent, depending on how long they remain and who sets them.

Similar technologies include local storage, session storage, and pixels that can store or read identifiers in comparable ways. This policy uses the word cookies to include these close equivalents when they perform a similar function, even though they are technically distinct.

Cookies are not inherently harmful, but they can affect privacy depending on what data they store, how long they last, and whether they are used across multiple sites. Understanding categories helps you make informed choices about what to allow.

How We Use Cookies

We use cookies to operate the site, understand usage, and in some cases monetize through advertising. Cookies may also support security features and performance optimizations delivered by third-party libraries or embeds.

Essential cookies may be required for basic navigation stability. Analytics cookies help us understand which articles and tools are most useful so we can prioritize improvements. Advertising cookies may help display more relevant ads and measure ad performance.

Types of Cookies We Use

Cookie Name Type Purpose Duration
facts_checker_essential Essential Stores basic preferences required for site operation such as cookie consent state when implemented. Up to 12 months
_ga Analytics (Google Analytics) Distinguishes users and helps measure traffic patterns and engagement. Up to 24 months per Google defaults
_gid Analytics (Google Analytics) Stores a session identifier for analytics aggregation. Typically 24 hours
IDE Advertising (Google AdSense) Used by Google advertising products to deliver and measure ads. Up to 13 months commonly
test_cookie Advertising (Google AdSense) Checks browser cookie support for ad delivery systems. Short session

Third-Party Cookies

Third-party cookies may be set by analytics or advertising partners when their scripts run on our pages. Those partners have their own privacy policies and retention practices. We do not control every cookie name across all integrations because vendors may update technology over time.

Google Analytics and Google AdSense are named examples of services that may set third-party or partitioned cookies depending on browser behavior and configuration. Features like browser tracking protections and consent settings can change what is stored and for how long.

If we embed media or widgets from other providers in the future, those providers may set their own cookies. When that happens, we will update this policy and the table so users can review changes.

How to Control Cookies

Chrome

Open Settings, choose Privacy and security, then Cookies and other site data. You can block third-party cookies, clear cookies, or set exceptions for specific sites.

Firefox

Open Settings, choose Privacy & Security, then manage cookies and site data. You can delete cookies and set enhanced tracking protection levels.

Safari

Open Preferences, choose Privacy, then manage cookies and website data. Safari includes features that limit cross-site tracking.

Edge

Open Settings, select Cookies and site permissions, then manage cookies and stored data. You can block third-party cookies and clear browsing data.

Cookie Consent

Where required, we will present a consent mechanism for non-essential cookies. You may withdraw consent by clearing cookies and adjusting browser settings. Essential cookies may remain necessary for basic operation.

Consent records may be stored to honor your choice across visits. If you clear cookies, your preference may reset and prompts may reappear. Some browsers provide global opt-out signals; where recognized and legally effective, we aim to respect those signals as required.

Contact

Email haithemhamtinee@gmail.com for cookie-related questions.