Start from the credential link, not the picture. Open the issuer's entry and read the issuer, criteria and date fields together. If the link stops at an image, or the entry is absent, private or mismatched, record that specific limit and describe the artifact as an unverified image rather than a verified credential.
Find public social profile clues with our TraceSeek app.
Why the pixels are not the record
A credential image is a visual snapshot. Open Badges data can instead carry issuer, criteria, evidence and dates inside the credential itself, so a plain image may lack the fields that make a claim checkable. When you receive a shared credential link, treat the link as the trail to the source and the image as an illustration. The goal is a record you can read: who issued it, on what criteria, and when. [Credly: imported credentials and inferred skill labels]
Read the three fields as one statement
Open the available issuer page and locate the issuer name, the stated criteria and the date. Read them together before writing any description. The criteria field tells you what the issuer says the credential recognizes; the date tells you when the issuer recorded it. Neither field alone carries the claim. If the issuer is named but the criteria page is empty or the date is missing, you have a partial record, and your summary should say which part is missing.
| observation | limit | next step |
|---|---|---|
| An issuer name appears with a criteria description and a date | These are the issuer's words, not your confirmation of current skill or authorization | Quote the credential as issued, with its date, and stop there |
| Only a badge image is available | An image alone may not contain verifiable metadata | Describe it as a shared image and look for an issuer link before drawing conclusions |
| The link resolves to an issuer page but criteria are blank | The claim is incomplete | Record the absent criteria field as the precise limit |
| The issuer record was flagged as unverified for missing standard information | A metadata validation limit, not an allegation of fraud | Note the flag as a metadata gap, not misconduct |
Treat validation flags as metadata, not accusations
An imported badge can be marked unverified when required standard information is absent. That flag describes what the metadata is missing; it is not by itself an allegation of fraud. The distinction matters when you pass information to someone else. A missing field or a validation flag is an observation about the record, and describing it as an accusation of dishonesty adds a claim the record does not make. [Credly: imported credentials and inferred skill labels]
Separate the artifact, the record, the claim and your note
Keep four things apart as you work: the shared image, the issuer record it points to, the claim the issuer states, and your own note about what remains unknown. Blending them produces sentences like "this person has this skill," when the record supports only "this issuer states this criteria on this date." A well-formed note says what you opened and what it contained. A short worksheet can help: one column for the link opened, one for the issuer and criteria found, one for the date, and one for the limit. The worksheet is a reader aid you build yourself, not a promised feature in any tool.
- Open the link and write down its issuer name, criteria text and date exactly as shown
- List any field that is blank or not reachable instead of filling it from the image
- Keep a separate sentence for what you could not verify
When the source is absent, private or ambiguous
Sometimes the link is dead, the issuer page is private, or the record names a different issuer than the image suggests. In each case, name the exact limit and stop. Do not request private records, do not attempt to identify the holder from the image, and do not substitute your own guess for the missing field. If the artifact came from someone who voluntarily shared it, keeping the description at the level of the link is the protective and accurate choice. An unambiguous absence is more useful than a confident fill-in. [Credly: imported credentials and inferred skill labels]
A hypothetical example
Suppose a colleague shares a credential link with a badge image. The link opens an issuer page with a stated criteria description and a date, and nothing else. A careful note would read: "Shared credential link; issuer page states criteria X and date Y; no employment or current authorization stated." If the criteria section is blank, the note becomes: "Shared image and issuer name; criteria field not available at the link." Neither version identifies the holder or assesses them. Both stay inside what the source shows. [Credly: imported credentials and inferred skill labels]
Keep it out of eligibility decisions
A credential record is not a basis for hiring, credential eligibility, housing, credit or insurance decisions. Even a complete issuer, criteria and date statement tells you what an issuer recorded, not whether someone currently holds a license to practice or meets a rule for a program. If a decision requires eligibility, send the question to the issuing body's current guidance rather than reading badge pixels or an issuer page as a substitute. Do not use this guide to grant or deny a credential. [Credly: imported credentials and inferred skill labels]
A couple more questions
What should I record if the credential link only opens an image?
Record that only an image was reachable, note that an image may lack verifiable issuer and criteria metadata, and stop before describing the claim as verified.
Does an unverified badge mark mean someone cheated?
No. It reflects absent standard information in the metadata and is a validation limit, not an allegation of fraud.
Can I use this record to check whether someone is eligible for a job or program?
No. The record shows what an issuer stated, not current eligibility. Direct eligibility questions to the issuing body's current guidance.
What if the issuer page names a different organization than the image?
Treat this as an ambiguous match: note the mismatch precisely, avoid choosing one version, and do not pursue private records to resolve it.
Sources & editorial notes
Official references checked on October 24, 2026. Checklists, comparison tables and example wording are DateClues editorial tools, not official tests or validated risk scores.
General information. No guide or tool can certify a person’s identity, intentions or safety. Read our editorial standards.