Editorial policy

Almost every number published on this subject is wrong, and most of the pages publishing them have no author, no citation and something to sell. That is the standard Dickle is trying to clear. This page says who decides what gets published here, the test a study has to pass, and what happens when one fails after the fact.

Last updated: 16 August 2026

Who writes this

One person: Flavius Cojocaru, who reads the papers, records each figure with its provenance, writes the guides, builds the site and answers the mail. There is no editorial team and no clinical board, and where a page carries a byline it is that person’s.

Flavius Cojocaru is not a doctor and no page here is written as though he were. The claim this site makes is narrower and easier to check: that it reports the literature accurately, names what it is reporting, and admits what it does not know. The about page has the longer version and the contact routes.

How a figure gets published

A country’s number has to clear four things. Countries that cannot clear them are left out of the rotation entirely, which is why the game covers far fewer countries than the maps circulating online, all of which cover every country on earth and none of which can say where their numbers came from.

It comes from a primary study. A named paper with named authors, not a figure quoted by an aggregator that does not say where it got it. The reveal screen prints the citation, so a player can go and read it.
It was measured, not reported. A clinician with a ruler, not a survey asking men to measure themselves. Self-reported figures run substantially and predictably high, and mixing the two produces a ranking of national self-confidence rather than of anything anatomical.
It is the same measure as every other row. Stretched length, throughout. It is what the clinical literature reports and the only measure with wide enough coverage to build a country list without silently mixing methodologies.
Its method is recorded alongside it. Sample size, year, and in particular whether the measurement was bone-pressed, since pressing the ruler into the pubic bone adds roughly a centimetre and studies disagree about doing it. Each row’s method is printed on the reveal precisely so that a reader can see when a gap between two countries is partly a gap between two protocols.

The methodology page goes through the measure itself and where the literature is weakest.

What we will not do

Standing rules, and the reason this site is smaller and duller than it could be.

No untraceable numbers. A country whose figure circulates widely but traces back to nothing is either excluded or published with no primary study traced printed where the citation would go. It is never quietly listed as though it were sourced.
Nothing titillating. No imagery, no innuendo, clinical register throughout. The subject has been handled with nothing but jokes for four thousand years and the jokes have a body count.
No medical advice, and no advice dressed as information. No page here will tell you what is normal for you, interpret a figure for an individual, or recommend anything. Where the literature describes distress about size, the guides point at clinicians, not at products.
Nothing sold, ever. No enlargement product, supplement, device, clinic or programme has been promoted here, has paid for placement here, or ever will be. This is the single largest commercial opportunity the subject offers and it is permanently off the table, because taking it would make every other sentence on the site unbelievable.
No auto-generated articles. Every guide is written and edited by hand. Drafts stay unindexed and off the guides index until they are finished.

Corrections

If a figure here is wrong, or you can point at a better study for a country, email flaviuscojocaru19@gmail.com naming the country and, ideally, the paper. A citation turns a week of searching into an afternoon.

What happens then:

Every report is read by the person who compiled the data. Not a support queue.
A figure we cannot re-verify against its stated source is pulled from the rotation rather than left up while it is investigated. A country missing from the game is better than a country with an invented number attached to it.
Where a country is replaced or removed, the change is made in the data and the archive keeps working: past puzzles are permanent, so a day that has already been played is never silently rewritten.
Corrections to a published guide are made in the text and the page’s updated date changes with them. Where the correction changes what the piece argued rather than a detail, it is noted at the foot of the article instead of quietly rewritten.
You get a reply either way, including when we conclude the original figure was right.

How the site is funded

Advertising, served through Google AdSense, and nothing else. No affiliate links, no sponsored posts, no paid inclusions, no data sold. Nobody buying an ad has any say over what the guides argue or which studies appear.

The one rule that matters more here than the funding model is the one above: nothing that claims to change the number is ever sold, promoted or accepted here. If the ad network serves something of that kind, report it and it gets blocked. The privacy policy covers the data side.

Use of AI tools

Stating this explicitly, because the honest answer is not “none”. Software-assisted tooling is used the way a spellchecker or a spreadsheet is: to draft the site’s code, to check arithmetic and unit conversions, and to catch clumsy sentences.

It is not used to produce published text unsupervised, and it is never the source of a figure. Every number here comes from the paper it cites, read by a person, and every guide is read line by line by Flavius Cojocaru before it is published. On this subject in particular, a plausible-sounding number that nobody checked is exactly the failure mode the site exists to argue against.