3 ms·

I'm not a lawyer: In the absence of a reporting mechanism for issues like this, I'd suggest at least a notice / message alongside results to indicate that they

by jka 5y ago

I'm not a lawyer: In the absence of a reporting mechanism for issues like this, I'd suggest at least a notice / message alongside results to indicate that they may not reflect the current state of official and amended records. (I think you may be wise to take this issue fairly seriously; there's a risk of people considering the search engine to be an authority in itself -- which, to be fair, is already a risk for any search engine, but since this one is more domain-focused, it's possible that some users could overdevelop a sense that the results are accurate and complete)

richardbarosky 5y ago
This is stated in simple language on the terms page, which is linked at the top/middle of every page. You have to decide between putting the same text on every page vs. a high visibility place vs. a low visibility place. I opted for 2nd to make sure it's clear.
- jka 5y ago
  Do most people read and comprehend terms pages before using the information they discover from search engines? (I don't know)
  - runnerup 5y ago
    Absolutely not. A vanishingly tiny percent ever click on the terms link.
    - sharken 5y ago
      Indeed, so the only good option would be to only search public records. Everything else should not be searchable.
- haswell 5y ago
  It’s good that this is listed in the terms, but this raises two concerns: 1) People don’t read terms. Should they? Yes. Do they? No. 2) This language is more like a disclaimer than a term of use. I would not assume that disclaimers about the accuracy of the result would be found in the terms. So yes, the terms link is prominent, but no, I don’t think it addresses this issue.