Request a topic or ask a question

We built Pasensus around a simple idea: readers deserve clear, current, and honest information on the topics they care about. That editorial mission works best as a two-way exchange, so this page is where you can tell us what you need, flag something that looks off, or point us toward a subject we haven't covered yet. Every message we receive is read by a person on our editorial team, and the patterns we spot in reader questions genuinely shape what we research and publish next. There are a few common reasons people reach out, and knowing which one fits your message helps us respond faster and more usefully. The first is a topic request. If there's a subject you keep searching for and can't find a straight answer to, describe it in plain terms — what you already know, what's confusing, and the specific question you wish someone would answer. Requests that include this kind of context are far easier for us to turn into a guide that actually helps, rather than a general overview that skims the surface. Popular reader requests have grown into pieces like 'How to evaluate information sources' and 'How to read guides and explainers effectively,' both of which started as questions from people who wanted practical tools, not theory. The second reason is a question about something you've already read. Maybe a step in one of our explainers wasn't clear, or you'd like to understand how a recommendation applies to your particular situation. When you write in, tell us which article you're referring to and quote the sentence or section that raised the question. That small detail saves a lot of back-and-forth and lets us give you a precise answer instead of a guess. We can't offer personalised professional advice, but we can clarify what we meant, explain our reasoning, and point you to the parts of our library — such as 'Fact-checking basics every reader should know' or 'How to organise your research notes' — that go deeper. The third reason, and one we take especially seriously, is a correction or update. Our work relies on trust, and trust depends on getting things right and fixing them openly when we don't. If you believe a fact is wrong, a source has become outdated, or a link no longer works, let us know exactly where the problem is and, if you have it, where the accurate information can be found. This kind of feedback is invaluable. It reflects the same standards we ask readers to apply in 'How to spot outdated information' and 'What editorial standards mean for readers' — we hold ourselves to them too. Verified corrections are reviewed and, where warranted, applied with a note so readers can see what changed. When you contact us, a little structure goes a long way. A clear subject line that names your topic, the relevant article title if there is one, and a short, direct description of what you need will get you a better and quicker reply than a broad message. There's no need to be formal; we'd rather have your honest question in your own words than a polished paragraph that leaves out the thing you actually wanted to know. If your message is time-sensitive, say so, though please understand we publish reference material rather than breaking news. We read everything, but we can't promise an individual reply to every note, particularly for broad suggestions or general thanks — all of which we still appreciate and log. You can expect a personal response when your message needs one: a genuine question, a correction, or a topic request we want to explore further. If your question is already answered somewhere in our library, we may reply with a link and a brief explanation of where to look, since a good guide often solves the problem more thoroughly than a quick note could. A note on what we don't do: we're an editorial publication, not a marketplace or a service provider. We don't sell products, we won't publish sponsored placements dressed up as guidance, and we don't offer legal, medical, financial, or other regulated professional advice. If your question really calls for a qualified specialist, we'll say so plainly and, where we can, suggest the kinds of trustworthy sources described in our guides on evaluating information. Being upfront about our limits is part of the standard we hold ourselves to. Finally, if you're not sure your idea is worth sending, send it anyway. Some of our most-read explainers came from readers who assumed their question was too basic or too niche to matter — it usually turns out that if one person is wondering, many others are too. Your feedback, requests, and corrections keep this project accurate and relevant, and we're grateful for the time it takes to write to us. When you're ready to dig into what we've already published, browse our library of guides and reference articles and read more on the topics you follow.