Skip to content
The Bug Identifier

Editorial policy

How we identify bugs and verify content

Our approach to research, fact-checking, photo identification, and safety.

Who writes this site

A small editorial team writes and maintains The Bug Identifier. We do not pay contributors per article. Each guide goes through the same route: research against primary sources, draft, a second pass back against those sources, then a date. Nobody gets an author credit on a page they did not research.

We are not licensed entomologists and we do not claim to be. What we do is read the primary literature closely, cite it openly, and say plainly when the evidence is thin. Where a question needs a professional, we say so instead of guessing.

Sources we use

Every factual claim traces to a source we would be comfortable showing you, and each guide lists its sources at the bottom. In rough order of preference:

  1. University extension entomology. Penn State, University of Kentucky, UC IPM, Cornell, and equivalent land-grant programmes. These are written for the public and reviewed by working entomologists.
  2. Government health and environment agencies. The CDC for disease and bite guidance, the EPA for pesticide and treatment rules.
  3. Peer-reviewed literature and taxonomic databases for species boundaries, scientific names, and distribution.
  4. Curated identification communities such as BugGuide, used for range and appearance rather than for medical claims.

We do not use other pest-control blogs as sources. Where the sites competing with us on a topic disagree with the extension services, we follow the extension services and say why.

How we handle disagreement between sources

Sources contradict each other often, and hiding that makes a guide less useful. We explain the split instead of picking a side in silence.

Here is a real example. On white mites, some sources say raise the humidity and others say lower it. Both are right, for different species. Spider mites like dry air, so raising humidity holds them back. Grain and dust mites need moisture, so lowering it starves them. One answer for all white mites is wrong half the time, so our guide states the split.

How the identifier works, and its limits

Photo identification uses an AI vision model with a tightly written prompt. It weighs body proportions, leg count, wing state, colour pattern, and surface texture. Every result carries a confidence score.

That score is deliberate. A tool that always sounds certain is more dangerous than one that admits doubt. A confident wrong answer about a widow or a recluse is exactly the mistake that matters. So when the model is unsure it says so, and if an image might be a medically significant species we pick the more cautious rating.

We state the limits on the guides themselves. A crushed specimen usually cannot be identified. Many larvae and nymphs cannot be told apart by eye at all. Some mites and small flies need a microscope. We would rather say that than invent a species name.

Review and corrections

Advertising and independence

Advertising through Google AdSense pays for this site. That relationship buys placement on the page and nothing else. No advertiser sees a guide before it publishes. No payment has ever changed an identification, a safety rating, or a recommendation. Ads sit outside the article body, never above the first heading, and never inside a table where a reader might mistake one for content.

We do not run sponsored posts presented as editorial, and we do not accept payment for links inside guides.

What we will not do