SaltCellCheck: 100 of 212 specs made the page, each confirmed by a second, separate reading, as of Oct 13, 2026
For pool owners replacing a salt cell who want the right fit at a fair price.
I built a guide to salt pool cells, and every number on it comes from the maker's own papers. The mistakes that nearly shipped were missing numbers, and checks that said passed when they shouldn't have.
Visit SaltCellCheck Read the story
Age not measured yet Not in my dashboard's search pulls yet, so there is no click count here, which is different from zero
- First recorded version Jul 25, 2026
- In Google's index 16 of 26 pages, Sep 20, 2026
- Google clicks Not measured yet
- Bing clicks Not measured yet
- Now No click count yet
- 63manufacturer documents on file, each archived and dated, counted by the live site
- 30Hayward documents read for a rated cell life. None states one: a negative, proven
DNever ship a wrong factIts mascot: Umbreon
Someone at the equipment pad with a warning light on
A salt pool owner, standing at the equipment pad in direct sun, phone in hand, with a warning light on and a cell that's four to seven years old. They're deciding between a brand-name cell and a generic one at less than half the price. They want to know what fits, what the warranty really covers, and how long the cell should last.
Every one of those answers is in a manufacturer PDF nobody reads. I wanted the page that reads them, quotes them, and dates them, so a pool pro would trust it and an AI answer would cite it. Here, a wrong fact about acid can hurt someone. Being right is the floor, and the floor is where this site had to start.
Each fact read twice from the maker's own paperwork
A cross-brand database. Each fact lives in one file with its source document and the date it was read, and it renders only after a second, blind reading of the same document, by a model that sees nothing I recorded, returns the same value. A fact that hasn't passed shows as pending or doesn't show at all. An unverified value never reaches a page, and the one case that once slipped through gets planted again on every update to prove the guard still works.
The rule that did the most work: "the documents don't say" is a claim too. It has to name the set of documents it covers, and the second reading has to come back with "not in document" for every one of them. A re-reader that finds a value doesn't quietly correct the page; it stops everything until the claim is fixed. That is how the site can say the most replaced cell in the country has no published lifespan in 30 Hayward manuals, and mean it.
Live on the site, read Oct 13, 2026
63 documents captured, 100 of 212 fields agreed on two readings, 10 documented absences
What a reader sees instead of a guess
Two Hayward documents quoted side by side where they contradict each other on whether coverage transfers
The three stamps are computed by the site at build time and read off its methodology page.
A blind second reading caught my miss on the warranty question
On July 25, 2026 I filed "does a generic cell void the warranty?" as not stated. My text search had stopped at three hits, all page footers. The blind second reading found the sentence that decides the purchase: a non-genuine cell voids it. The same day the re-reading caught a warranty offer I had written into the evidence chain that no document supported, and a steady "inspect cell" light I had logged as a reminder when it means the chlorine has stopped.
Then the checkers. On July 26, 2026 I found a layout check that measured wrapper elements and passed the eleven pages it was written to catch; a push that had gone out on a failing check because the script tested a text match instead of the exit code; and an unverified fact rendering in the homepage hero under a "captured" date. Each one became a planted test that has to fail before the check is trusted. And on Jul 25, 2026 one line of build configuration made 58 archived manufacturer PDFs publicly reachable for part of a day. Nothing linked to them; they were still served. The site's changelog says so in public.
Doing the arithmetic also found a defect in a manufacturer's own safety document: the metric acid volumes in one cleaning sheet dilute at a different ratio from the imperial ones. I held that back for a second reading before saying it anywhere.
Reach is small and I'll say so. Google had 16 of 26 known pages in its index on Sep 20, 2026. Bing's export counts 111 citations in its AI answers through Oct 11, 2026, across 11 pages; the most cited, /cells/pentair/, drew 33. This site isn't in my dashboard's search pulls, so there is no click number on this page.
How I measured it. The misses and their dates are from the site's own commit history, read Oct 13, 2026. Index count: Google Search Console's page indexing export. Citations: Bing Webmaster Tools' AI Performance export, a manual pull that stops at Oct 11, 2026.
SaltCellCheck's search clicks by month
No month-by-month chart here yet: no search data, because this site isn't in the Search Console and Bing data I pull each month.
The site promised monthly checks and then stopped rebuilding
Two rules from the build held: an absence is a claim, and a check is trusted only after it has failed on purpose. The miss below is one neither rule covered.
The promise outlived the schedule
The site describes itself as "re-verified on a monthly cycle". The last commit landed on Aug 18, 2026, and the checks only run when the site is updated. On Oct 13, 2026 every page's "checked" stamp still read Jul 25, 2026. The price check's own rule fails a capture older than 45 days, and it can't fire on a site that sits still. Every check passed because no check ran.
The stuck clock
86 days from the newest verification date on the site, Jul 26, 2026, to Oct 20, 2026, when I read it. The site promises to be "re-verified on a monthly cycle", so the next check was due Aug 26, 2026; on Oct 20, 2026 it was 55 days late.
Days past the promised monthly check: 55Days inside the month: 31
| Newest verification date on the site | Jul 26, 2026 |
|---|---|
| Check due, by its own promise | Aug 26, 2026 |
| Read on | Oct 20, 2026 |
| Days inside the month | 31 |
| Days past the promise | 55 |
| All cells | 86 |
What changes
A freshness rule has to run on a clock, not on an update. "Re-verified monthly" is a promise only a schedule can keep, and my sports site already runs that way: a scheduled job rebuilds it and the checks fail on their own. The same job belongs here. The page still has to get someone to a decision, and being right is only the floor.
The promise is quoted from the site's own structured data; the stamp and the last commit were read Oct 13, 2026.
Hear Homer is another of my sites where a source check passed and a review still found errors in the published claims.
Where these numbers come from
- Decision
- Make the verification rule public.
- Visible proof
- The page says two readings must agree before anything publishes and shows when it was checked.
- Limit
- A stamped page cannot prove the check ran again; this site's checks only run when it's updated.
Captured at phone width on . The live page may have changed.
Check the current page