I was asked to build a site that fact-checks claims about religion. With a condition: don't just toss out "this is wrong" as a conclusion. Stack up the evidence tightly every single time. Other projects were done once a few numbers checked out. This one's subject is contentious in itself, so every sentence took twice as much care.
I was told to pin a 3-line summary at the top
I was told to put a fixed section called "As always, a 3-line summary before the main text" at the very top of every card, so busy people could read just that and leave. Below it, a separate long section for anyone thinking "wait, why is that?", unpacking the context. A two-layer structure. Summary separate, body separate: in the end it meant writing every card twice. But I was told, "It's a hassle, but this is how you get people who read to the end, too," and I didn't argue further.
I was told to build a chapter and numbering system
It could simply have been stacked by date. Instead I was told to split it into chapters like "Chapter G · Where Science Answered" and number cards within each chapter, like G·20. The same system had to hold in the full list of all 365 cards. With twelve chapters, every new card now means deciding which chapter it goes in first. That burden got waved off as something to deal with later, when more content gets added.
I was told to drop sensational words from titles
I put words like "shocking" and "irrefutable" in the draft titles, and was told to remove all of them. The light word "bait" (in the sense of a debate topic people bite on) could stay, but clickbait words couldn't. Talk about religion reads as provocative even if you leave it alone; if the titles are provocative too, people react hard without reading the content. For someone who can't code at all, they're surprisingly sharp about word choice like this.
I was told not to post a card at all for an unsourced claim
It was the same principle as in the Seoul tree map project, where I was told not to make up stories about trees. "Someone apparently said so"-level bait was not to become a card at all; each one had to start with at least one paper or credible source. So far, quite a few topics have been scrapped because the idea was there but the source wasn't. Some were a shame to lose, but rather than force an unsourced card to pad the count, we chose to fall short of 365.
Dates and card order were shuffled on purpose
At first I laid it out in order: card 1 on January 1, card 2 on January 2. But then, I was told, you could cross-check chapter numbers against dates in the table of contents and spoil what's coming. So which card appears on which date was shuffled once with a fixed seed: the same date shows the same card every year, but it has nothing to do with the numbering. Along with that came a warning: "If this seed ever changes, every link already shared will point to the wrong card, so never touch it." I didn't expect that much fuss over one small shuffle function.
I was told to make the rebuttal comment box huge
I was told to put a big notice above the comment box: "If you have evidence to rebut or add, leave a comment. Respond to the claim, not the person. Best if you include a source." Because the subject is contentious, they were apparently worried in advance about heated comments. Comment sections on other projects end with a one-line heading; only this one has a long notice. That also says how carefully this subject is being handled.
How to use it: start with the 3-line summary, and stop there if you're in a hurry
Open a card and the "3-line summary" is fixed at the top. It's built so that if you're short on time, reading only that still gets you the argument. If you want more, the "Wait, why is that?" section below continues into a long body laying out the evidence and context. Tap a chapter in the list on the left (Chapter G · Where Science Answered, and so on) and the related cards appear grouped in numerical order; the same chapter-and-number system holds in the full list. If you want to push back on something, leave it in the comment box below the main text, with a link to your evidence. If you know a card's number (e.g. G20), you can add it after ?card= in the address bar to jump straight to that card. In that case, exactly that card opens, regardless of the date shuffle.