Research turns up things that do not survive a second look, and things that are true but not ours to publish. Both are listed here, because a page that prints only the flattering half of its own evidence is a sales page, and this is supposed to be a record.
- The rating the practice publishes about itself.
- Their own site carries a rating and a count in its own markup, with no platform named anywhere inside that block and no platform we can read returning the same figure. That is a claim a business makes about itself. This board records that it exists and does not repeat the number, because a self-published rating is not a review count and must not be quoted, rounded or alluded to as one.
- Everything about any individual practitioner.
- The register names one person four times over. No name, no credential and no history reaches a published sentence here, and nothing on this page compares one practice's work with another's. Fla. Admin. Code 64B5-4.002 governs dental advertising, including claims of superiority over other dental services, and the board does not need a sentence anywhere near it.
- Everything from the health department, including the licence number.
- The licence reached on that register is a practitioner licence issued to a natural person — the route says so in its own title — and the corporation's Florida record carries no licence field at all. A practitioner's licence is a fact about a practitioner, so it falls inside the refusal above and is published in no form: not as one the practice holds, not without a holder, not as a number on its own. The same page prints an issue date, an expiry date, a controlled-substance designation, a discipline flag and a public-complaint flag; all were read and none is published, never their proximity and never their absence, because an absence is not a finding in that direction either.
- The first-capture date as a claim about how long the business has traded.
- The domain is twelve years older than the corporation and no filing connects them. Under the rule this board counts by, each link in a chain needs a record that connects the entities, and a domain is not a record. The register's date is what gets published, which is the smaller of the two numbers and the only one that is filed.
- That the searches were read to the two-run standard.
- The fifteen were read once. Nine of them had also been read the day before and eight of those nine agree, so eight is the figure with two same-surface readings behind it and eleven is the single-run reading. Both are stated here, neither is described as confirmed, and a second full run is what the next pass adds.
- Anything about who is buying these searches.
- The advertising register could not be read. The route served a bot challenge to every request that day, including to the control query documented to carry seven advertisers, so five clean zeros from it would have been a fact about our fetcher rather than a fact about this market.