For fact-checking, the quality of your annotations is key

Years ago, I remember checking a feature for a print magazine. The reporter had worked internationally and interviewed sensitive sources via a translator. The primary sourcing I got included some photographs of scribbled notes (I had trouble discerning the author’s handwriting) and hours and hours of tape from interviews.

Some of the annotations told me to consult one of the audio files and some handwritten notes. There were no timestamps provided, no page number to accompany the notes, no nothing. 

I can’t tell you how many hours it took me to listen through the recording to verify a single fact. Not only did it cost me my sanity, but it also cost my client much more than they had originally budgeted for that fact-check. 

Since then, I’ve promised myself: no wild goose chases. 

I’ve impressed this on fact-checking clients and all of Factual’s checkers: If your annotations are non-specific, we’ll have to put this back on you to provide more specific sourcing.

The more specific your sourcing, the more efficiently a fact-checker can move through your piece and either verify facts or flag them for a suggested change for accuracy. The more specific your sourcing, the less time it will cost a fact-checker to vet your project for accuracy. At the end of the day, better sourcing benefits everyone.

You can learn more about all the ways to better annotate a draft for a fact-checker in Factual’s signature guide: How to annotate anything for fact-checking. (If you’re a client, you’ll get a license of this guide for free!)