Snopes
Shares rank 6 of 18 reference websites by recommenders
People recommend Snopes for its background info and primary-source verdicts readers can check themselves. Critics most often cite political bias and funding conflicts.
People recommend Snopes for its background info and primary-source verdicts readers can check themselves. Critics most often cite political bias and funding conflicts.
14 people gave an opinion
- recommend it
- 8
- criticize it
- 6
- approval share
- 57%
Recommended in 5 of 13 months
- November 2025: recommended
- December 2025: not recommended
- January 2026: not recommended
- February 2026: recommended
- March 2026: recommended
- April 2026: not recommended
- May 2026: recommended
- June 2026: not recommended
- July 2026: not recommended
- August 2026: not recommended
- September 2026: not recommended
- October 2026: recommended
- November 2026: not recommended (month in progress)
Why it doesn’t carry the badge
- 8 people recommend itNeeds 10 or more, not met.
- 1.3 recommenders for every criticNeeds 2 to 1 or better, not met.
- Recommended in 5 of 13 monthsNeeds 4 or more, met.
The same three rules apply to every product, and the badge can’t be bought. How the badge works
What people say about it
The reasons people give, with the number of comments that give each one. Open a reason to read what they said.
Why people recommend it
Each mark is one comment
Background info to check findings
“they provide ample background info for you to replicate (or repudiate) their findings”
Comment from 15 May 2026 in “Check Your Fucking Sources, People” “find primary sources, present them, and give a verdict based on those primary sources”
Comment from 15 May 2026 in “Check Your Fucking Sources, People” Quick accurate answers on rumors
“is actually completely right about the incident in question”
Comment from 11 Nov 2025 in “The Future of Fact-Checking Is Lies, I Guess” “Snopes cleared it up in a matter of minutes”
Comment from 15 May 2026 in “Check Your Fucking Sources, People” Consistent results over time
“Snopes continues to do what it was meant to do.”
Comment from 17 Feb 2026 in “General Motors Replies to Bill Gates” “pretty good so far, in their case”
Comment from 15 May 2026 in “Check Your Fucking Sources, People”
What people warn about
Each mark is one comment
Perceived left-leaning political bias
“Many 'fact checking' platforms are self-admittedly focused on left advocacy (snopes)”
Comment from 28 May 2026 in “Five frontier LLMs disagree on 67% of 1k real-world fact-check claims” “Snopes engaging in this type of behavior... their problematic approach to their work”
Comment from 15 May 2026 in “Check Your Fucking Sources, People” “sources that back up the lies that Snopes and other fact-checkers peddle”
Comment from 15 May 2026 in “Check Your Fucking Sources, People” Funding and ownership conflicts of interest
“Your links are mostly about ownership, supposed sources of bias, and internal politics.”
Comment from 15 May 2026 in “Check Your Fucking Sources, People” “because of the conflict of interest created by who / what groups fund them”
Comment from 21 May 2026 in “Check Your Fucking Sources, People” Shifting answers and archive exclusions
“They now often answer with a very different context than they start out with.”
Comment from 11 Nov 2025 in “The Future of Fact-Checking Is Lies, I Guess” “Snopes excluded itself from the Wayback Machine during 2020”
Comment from 6 Dec 2025 in “State Department to deny visas to fact checkers and others, citing 'censorship'” Questionable claims and weak track record
“they said that masks do nothing to the airborne viruses”
Comment from 5 Dec 2025 in “State Department to deny visas to fact checkers and others, citing 'censorship'” “yet I have seen them make questionable claims”
Comment from 5 Dec 2025 in “State Department to deny visas to fact checkers and others, citing 'censorship'” “their track record is not great”
Comment from 15 May 2026 in “Check Your Fucking Sources, People”
Other reference websites people recommend
The four most recommended other reference websites, with the same counts for each, so you can compare like for like. The tick on each bar marks the 2 to 1 line the badge needs.
| Product | Recommend | Criticize | Approval | Months | Owned | Badge |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sheldon Brown's Bicycle Technical Info | 49 | 0 | 100% | 6 | 19 yrs4 owners | Approved |
| Animated Knots by Grog | 14 | 1 | 93% | 2 | — | — |
| Ian's Shoelace Site | 10 | 1 | 91% | 4 | — | Approved |
| OEIS | 9 | 1 | 90% | 6 | — | — |
| SnopesThis page | 8 | 6 | 57% | 5 | — | — |
What people said
All 20 comments that mention it, newest first. Each links to the original comment.
“I found myself nodding along with every last one of those.”
“they encapsulate the best of what I like about the internet”
“Many 'fact checking' platforms are self-admittedly focused on left advocacy (snopes)”
“because of the conflict of interest created by who / what groups fund them”
“the company he founded to tell you the truth about the world”
“find primary sources, present them, and give a verdict based on those primary sources”
“Your links are mostly about ownership, supposed sources of bias, and internal politics.”
“Snopes engaging in this type of behavior... their problematic approach to their work”
“sources that back up the lies that Snopes and other fact-checkers peddle”
“their track record is not great”
“they provide ample background info for you to replicate (or repudiate) their findings”
“pretty good so far, in their case”
“Snopes cleared it up in a matter of minutes”
“i'm goinna adopt the snopes scale”
“Snopes continues to do what it was meant to do.”
“Snopes excluded itself from the Wayback Machine during 2020”
“they said that masks do nothing to the airborne viruses”
“yet I have seen them make questionable claims”
“They now often answer with a very different context than they start out with.”
“is actually completely right about the incident in question”
Counts come from 1,795,640 Hacker News comments, November 2025 to November 2026. How we count. Report a mistake.