1. Start with an authoritative source
Government pages and registries come first for public facilities, rules, licensed premises and recognised service lists. We use an organisation's own official website for claims that go beyond those government records. We do not copy competitor descriptions or rely on an unattributed directory as the sole source.
2. Publish only supportable facts
Every summary is written afresh in neutral language. A record must identify service scope, pet type, Singapore coverage, at least one useful fact, its source links and a last-verified date. Unknown details remain unknown.
3. Treat volatile facts differently
Availability, opening hours, prices, programme schedules, licensing status, adoption status and pet-friendly rules can change quickly. We generally avoid copying them. Where a time-sensitive fact is useful, the record tells readers to reconfirm it directly.
4. Never convert evidence into a ranking
PetFriends does not claim that a source-checked provider is the “best”, safer, more suitable or currently available. A government licence or recognised-agent entry is evidence of registry status, not an endorsement by the authority or PetFriends. Featured cards are editorial starting points chosen to demonstrate category breadth, not paid placement or quality scores.
5. Keep a visible audit trail
Every detail page shows source links and the date checked. Data is schema-validated before release, including unique identifiers, controlled taxonomy and HTTPS provenance requirements.
6. Review corrections and claims manually
Public forms create pending review records only. They do not change a listing, publish a new business or grant ownership. Claimants are asked for work email and public evidence rather than identity documents.
Removal and disputes
Organisations can use the correction route to request closure, removal or a factual change. Contested requests require human assessment and do not automatically suppress another party’s evidence.
Suggest a listing or email [email protected] with an editorial question.