Our method
What we check
Every check here is mechanical and every number is counted from the data at the moment this page was built. The unflattering ones are on the page beside the rest.
Every record points at where it came from
| Records linking to the page they were read from | 357 of 357 |
|---|---|
| Records carrying a date they were last checked | 357 of 357 |
| Records reported by more than one independent page | 12 |
| Records with their own application link | 106 of 357 |
An award reported by three separate school bulletins is better evidenced than one reported by a single page, so the extra sources are kept and shown rather than collapsed away. Where a record has no application link of its own, its page links the listing it came from and says that is what the link is.
The sponsor's words are not rewritten
Eligibility text is quoted exactly as the sponsor published it. It is not paraphrased, shortened for style, or regenerated. Our summary sits above the quote, and where the two disagree the quote is correct.
One narrowing, and the page that carries it says so. Contact details inside a quote that are not part of applying are removed before publication, because republishing a named person's direct line is a cost they did not agree to. An address the sponsor names as where an application goes stays, because removing it would break the promise that every award leads somewhere you can act.
| Awards with anything removed from their quote | 29 of 357 |
|---|---|
| Individual details removed | 61 |
Each of those pages shows a marker where the removal happened and says how many were taken out, because an edited quote that does not admit it was edited is worse than either choice.
A blank field means unknown
A blank field on this site records that the sponsor did not publish that requirement. It never records that the requirement does not exist. This matters more than it sounds: filtering a student out on a requirement nobody published costs them an award they could have won, and nobody ever finds out.
So the index never counts a blank as a no, and no page here says an award has no requirement on the strength of the sponsor being silent about it.
What we refuse to publish
| Expired awards removed from the site entirely | 220 |
|---|---|
| Records held back from search as too thin | 197 of 357 |
An award whose deadline has genuinely passed is removed rather than hidden, so no page exists and nothing links to one. A recurring date with no year is not treated as expired, because a student can still act on it.
A record a sponsor published very little about is still built and still reachable from its county and sponsor pages, but it is kept out of search results. Publishing a page that cannot answer the question somebody arrived with is the practice search engines penalise, and the defence is refusing to put the thin ones forward rather than writing filler to pad them out.
What we still do not know
175 awards have no deadline we could read, and 65 give a month and day with no year. Those gaps are the sponsors' pages being quiet, not fields we forgot to fill, and guessing at any of them would put a made-up date in front of a student.
What we do not know, in more detail, and what this site will never do.
Most recent check against sponsors' pages: 2026-08-12. Sources are re-read on a schedule, and a sponsor can change their page at any time, so the link on each award page is the authority rather than this one.