Blog · Methodology
How this blog handles facts
This blog exists for one thing: to help people who study learn better and sustain the routine (memory, focus, sleep, method), always based on what science actually measured, not on what sounds good. These are the rules every post follows.
Every number has a primary source
Every statistic in the text comes with the original study linked: author, year, and the exact result. We don't cite a number from another blog's post that cited a third; we go to the peer-reviewed article and check it there. When a number has no study behind it, it doesn't get in.
What counts as a strong source
Not every source carries the same weight. We prioritize, in this order: meta-analyses and systematic reviews, controlled trials, and primary studies published in peer-reviewed journals. A number from a course, thread, or infographic only gets in if we can trace it to the original source. And if the source doesn't exist, the number becomes an example of what not to claim.
We separate fact from viral myth
Much of what circulates about studying is myth dressed as data: the famous "we forget 90% in 24 hours" is the classic example. When a viral number is wrong, we say it's wrong and give the honest range instead. Taking the problem seriously doesn't require inflating the statistic.
How and when we update
Science changes; so do posts. When new evidence arrives or a number is corrected, we update the post at the same address and record the date and reason for the change. You see "Updated" at the top of the article. The URL never changes: what you bookmarked still holds.
Who writes, and why the voice is the house's
Posts are written and reviewed by the Sift team. Deliberately, the text doesn't revolve around a person: the credential that matters is the process (the source linked to every claim), not a name at the top. Sift is the app we built, and when it shows up in a post it's as the practical application of the method, always after the method has already been taught.