WTN Market source contradiction resolution workflow

Separate claims before comparing them

Write each WTN Market URL claim as a separate record with its wording, source, publication time and observed destination. Two posts that use the same phrase may still describe different addresses or different periods.

Do not merge conflicting statements into a single status. Preserving the disagreement makes later review auditable and prevents an unsupported majority vote.

Weight evidence by traceability

Give more weight to material that has a clear origin, date and revision history. A copied announcement remains one evidence chain even when it appears on many pages.

Technical availability can support an observation, but it cannot replace proof of who published or controls an address.

Choose a bounded public statement

When evidence remains mixed, publish a pending or unconfirmed state and explain the narrow reason. Avoid language that presents an unresolved WTNMarket mirror as official.

The title, FAQ, link card and structured data should all use the same cautious conclusion.

Define the next review trigger

Record what new evidence would change the decision, such as a dated source correction or a stable destination update. Review the affected page only when that trigger occurs.

After a substantive edit, align the page date and sitemap lastmod, then notify Bing for that canonical URL.

Frequently asked questions