Incidecoder

While it appears ostensibly to be a simple, easy-to-understand, objective source of ingredient explanations for a variety of cosmetic and beauty products, site writers appear to (intentionally or unintentionally) strongly exaggerate the qualities of certain ingredients in explanations to degrees that highly mislead readers. For example, "Incidecoder" staff write that retinol is a "the most proven anti-aging superstar available over the counter", "works great", and even refer to it as "magic" (archive source: https://tinyurl.com/4vdrtach). However, professional ConsumerReports testing on real people in the real world [1,2] revealed that a study of nine different "anti-aging" serums with similar "magic" ingredients produced results that were "underwhelming", and that the very best outcome possible was that they only "slightly reduce[d] the appearance of wrinkles in some people". Would a trustworthy ingredient analysis site refer to these kinds of results as "magic"?

Similar ingredients on the site (sometimes referred to as "Superstar" or "Goodie") appear to also be over-emphasized and exaggerated with no sources of clear, real-world results, which mislead readers through exotic-sounding, sublime verbiage (e.g. "magic moisturizer", "great choice for anti-aging", "can help the skin to repair itself") into expecting drastically different results than such products with those ingredients are actually capable of offering. Finally, even for ingredients described that do have a well-documented positive effect, the site is still highly misleading as it does not always list the percent/strength/skin-longevity required for that ingredient to have an effect. A user may be duped by the site into purchasing a product with an ingredient due to the site's glowing description of that ingredient, only for that purchased product to have a negligible amount that has little to no effect. This is called "angel dusting" and is a well-documented occurrence [3]. Incidecoder sometimes correctly accounts for this by stating percent/strength/skin-longevity requirements in the ingredient description, but many times it does not. As a result, it is likely that most people that use the site will be wrongfully influenced by Incidecoder's over-the-top descriptions to purchase products that, in actuality, do not have anywhere near the concentrations required to achieve the results listed in site ingredient descriptions.

For these reasons, Insidecoder should NOT be trusted as a sole source for accurate and reliable explanations of cosmetic/beauty ingredients. Though it's easy to buy into self-described "science-based" sites that paradoxically throw the term "magic" around, as seen in this case, you should research the real-world efficacy of an ingredient and its required concentration from professional sources. Remember that actual results are clearly shown by evidence-based, independent, published scientific testing. Your money, time, and long-term well-being will thank you.

Sources:
1. ConsumerReports.org Video - "Testing Anti-Aging Serums" (SiteJabber fails to display the page URL properly)
2. https://www.consumerreports.org/media-room/press-releases/2010/04/cr-health-anti-wrinkle-serums-claim-miracles-but-fall-short-on-results/
3. https://health.howstuffworks.com/skin-care/beauty/skin-and-makeup/angel-dusting.htm#pt1