FAQ on Niche Research Methods, Sources, and Updates

Authority sources on this site fall into several categories, ranked by general reliability. Government domains ending in .gov receive highest priority because US federal agencies operate under legal requirements for data accuracy and public accountability. Sources like the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Federal Register provide official data and regulatory information that forms the foundation of many briefs.

Educational institutions with .edu domains rank second, particularly when publishing peer-reviewed research or maintaining specialized databases. Established nonprofit organizations with .org domains come third, with preference given to those with transparent funding, clear methodologies, and histories of accurate reporting. Organizations like Pew Research Center exemplify this category.

Major news organizations with documented correction policies and editorial standards provide valuable synthesis and investigation, though we always attempt to trace their claims back to primary sources. We practice triangulation—verifying information across at least two independent sources before presenting it as established fact. When triangulation is not possible, we clearly label the limitation.

Uncertainty is inherent in research, and we address it through explicit confidence labels applied to key claims. High confidence indicates multiple independent sources agree, methodologies are transparent, and findings have been stable over time. Medium confidence suggests general agreement with some caveats—perhaps limited replication, evolving definitions, or moderate sample sizes. Low confidence flags emerging findings, single-source claims, or areas where expert opinion diverges significantly.

Conflicting data often results from differences in time windows, geographic scope, or operational definitions. For example, unemployment figures can vary depending on whether discouraged workers are included, how part-time employment is categorized, or which months are compared. We document these definitional differences so readers understand why two seemingly authoritative sources might report different numbers for the same phenomenon.

When conflicts cannot be resolved through definitional analysis, we present multiple figures with their sources and let readers draw their own conclusions. Hiding uncertainty would undermine the trust we aim to build. Transparency about limitations is more valuable than false precision.

Briefs undergo systematic quarterly review to assess whether new data releases, policy changes, or methodological updates warrant revisions. This cadence balances the need for current information against the stability that makes static sites valuable for reference purposes. Not every brief changes every quarter—updates occur only when substantive new information emerges.

Beyond scheduled reviews, certain triggers prompt immediate updates: major policy announcements affecting brief topics, corrections to underlying data sources, or identification of errors in our own analysis. When updates occur, we note the revision date and summarize what changed, maintaining a clear record of the brief's evolution.

Static pages can absolutely be updated and versioned—the "static" designation refers to how pages are served (pre-built files rather than database queries), not to content permanence. This architecture actually facilitates cleaner version control than dynamic systems, as each published state can be preserved and compared.

This site uses no JavaScript whatsoever, which means no tracking scripts, analytics packages, or cookie-setting code executes in your browser. We cannot identify individual visitors, track browsing patterns, or build user profiles because we have deliberately excluded the technical capabilities that would enable such practices.

Minimal server logs may exist depending on our hosting provider's default configuration. These logs typically record IP addresses, timestamps, and requested URLs for security and operational purposes. We do not analyze these logs for marketing or user profiling. If you require complete anonymity, consider accessing the site through a VPN or the Tor network.

This site provides informational content for US readers and does not offer accounts, subscriptions, or interactive features that would require personal data collection. The static architecture is both a performance choice and a privacy choice—by eliminating dynamic features, we eliminate the data collection that typically accompanies them.

Yes, you may reuse tables, checklists, and other structured content from this site with appropriate attribution. Proper citation includes linking to the source page so readers can access the original context and any updates that occur after your reuse. Maintaining context is essential—extracting a single row from a comparison table without the surrounding explanation can mislead readers about the original meaning.

Before relying on reused content for important decisions, verify the underlying information with primary sources. Our briefs synthesize and interpret source material, and your use case may require nuances we did not address. This guidance is not legal advice—if you are reusing content in regulated contexts (educational materials, professional publications, government documents), consult official guidance on citation requirements and fair use.

We encourage the spread of well-sourced information and view appropriate reuse as extending the value of our research. Just ensure your audience can trace claims back to authoritative origins.

The HTML details and summary elements provide accordion-style disclosure functionality natively, without requiring JavaScript. This matters for several reasons. First, native elements work reliably across all modern browsers and degrade gracefully in older browsers—the content simply displays expanded rather than hidden. JavaScript-based accordions can fail silently, leaving content inaccessible.

Second, native elements integrate automatically with browser accessibility features. Screen readers announce the expanded/collapsed state, keyboard users can toggle with Enter or Space, and the browser handles focus management correctly. Replicating this functionality in JavaScript requires significant expertise and testing that many implementations skip.

Third, users who enable reduced motion preferences in their operating system see instant state changes rather than animations. The browser respects these preferences automatically for native elements, while JavaScript implementations must explicitly check and honor them. For more on web accessibility standards, see the Wikipedia article on survey methodology which discusses how accessibility applies to research communication.