Two Sources Can Both Look Credible and Still Tell Different Stories

A directory may receive one address from a partner feed, another from the business website, and a third from a user correction. Automatically choosing the newest value can be just as risky as always trusting the same provider.

Identify what kind of conflict you have

A formatting difference is not the same as a real disagreement. “Suite 5, 21 King Street” and “21 King St Unit 5” may describe the same place. A completely different postcode or phone number needs investigation.

Consider recency and relationship to the business

An owner-confirmed update is strong evidence for many fields, but even owners can submit the wrong branch. A corporate location page may be authoritative for store hours, while a national contact page is not.

The right source can vary by field.

Freeze repeated conflicts instead of flipping values back and forth

If an automated feed keeps restoring old data after a manual correction, mark the field for protection or fix the source mapping. Repeated oscillation is a sign that precedence rules are missing.

Document why a decision was made

A short moderator note can save time when the same conflict reappears months later.

Conflict resolution is less about finding one universally trusted source and more about understanding which evidence best supports the particular field and location being updated.

Conflicts should be resolved by source strength and recency

Two data providers can disagree about the same phone number, address, or business status. The newest value is not automatically correct, and the largest provider is not automatically authoritative. A directory needs a hierarchy that gives more weight to verified owners, direct business evidence, or trusted primary sources for certain fields.