Our editorial standards.

Begin with the reader's question

An article should answer a specific question with a usable explanation, example or exercise. An interpretation should respond to the whole dream: actions, relationships, sequence and feelings. We avoid filler, sensational promises and claims that a dream has one inevitable meaning.

Name the kind of claim

Research describes findings within a study's methods and sample. Historical and religious texts describe published traditions and their context. Editorial interpretation offers a reasoned possibility. A worked example demonstrates an approach; it is not a study participant or a customer testimonial.

Weak or incomplete evidence should be labeled, with a clear limit on what it supports. A source's prestige does not make an unrelated claim reliable. Ordinary word definitions remain lexical aids, not evidence of a dream symbol's meaning.

Put sources beside the statements they support

Readers should be able to follow a factual claim to a relevant source and, where available, its specific passage or result. Citations include the author or institution, title, publication information and a stable link; translations and editions matter for historical material.

Our bibliography helps locate cited works and records their limitations. For a particular meaning, use that entry's own citations first. A bibliography listing does not imply that every page relies on that work or that every claim has been verified.

Keep responsibility with the publisher

The blog is published under The Uncanny Post's organizational byline. We label invented examples and do not invent author credentials, human reviewers, personal experience, interviews or independent endorsements.

Before publication, source-dependent statements need a check against the material actually available, with unsupported details removed or qualified. A check of an abstract is not a review of a full paper.

Make publication and revision visible

Blog articles show a publication date, a substantive-update date when applicable, sources, related reading and a change note. We preserve the original publication date. Cosmetic edits or an automated rebuild should not create a new freshness claim.

Content is prepared for people who want to understand and record dreams. Search-friendly titles, descriptions and internal links help readers find it. We do not publish near-duplicate keyword pages, invented research or large volumes of thin material to manipulate rankings.

Correct the actual claim

To report an error, send the page URL, the statement and an explanation or relevant reference. We may ask for context. A confirmed error should lead to a correction or removal of the affected statement; substantive article changes should be dated and described.

A private interpretation can be marked as a poor fit without disclosing the dream publicly. Source corrections and cultural-context concerns belong in private Feedback or Support, not in another person's community conversation.

Protect the dreamer and the work

We do not offer diagnosis, treatment or proof of future events. Religious perspectives are optional lenses, identified in context. Another person's dream, image or writing requires appropriate permission and attribution before reuse.

Useful interpretation leaves room to disagree, pause or stop. The original account stays distinct from an interpretation or creative retelling.