Editorial policy

One rule generates all the others: a claim that cannot be traced to a source does not get published. Where certainty is not possible, the page says so instead of guessing. Omitting a fact is acceptable; inventing one is not.

Sourcing hierarchy

Sources are preferred in this order:

1. Publisher primary sources: in-game rate disclosures, official sites, patch notes, press releases, investor filings.
2. Government and regulator documents: agency rulings, court decisions, legislation, classification boards.
3. Established general press with editorial standards (for example Bloomberg or national outlets), used mainly for events rather than game mechanics.
4. Long-standing community documentation projects, used for mechanics that publishers disclose in-game but not on the web, and always labeled as such.

We do not cite SEO content farms, AI-generated "wikis", pre-launch guide sites, or aggregator blogs, and we independently re-verify anything first seen on one. A shared internal blocklist of known fabricated-content sites is maintained in the project repository.

Verification statuses

• Verified.Every key fact on the page was checked against the cited sources on the date shown as "facts checked". If a page is verified, the numbers in it were live-checked, not remembered.
• Partially verified. Core facts are cited and checked; clearly marked sections still need sources. The page says which.
• Stub. A placeholder. Do not cite stubs; they exist so contributors can see what is missing.

Pages display their last-verified date, and a page whose verification is more than a year old warns readers automatically. Machine-readable copies of every page carry the same status fields.

Official numbers versus community measurements

Publishers disclose base rates and hard guarantees but usually not dynamics like soft pity. Where community statistical projects have documented those dynamics at scale, we report them labeled as community-documented estimates, marked with a tilde (~74), and we never present them as official. A number with no label is publisher-disclosed.

What we do not publish

• Tier lists and rankings. They are opinion, they age in weeks, and they would spend the site's credibility on its least defensible content.
• Leaked or datamined content, and pre-release "confirmed" claims without a primary source.
• Redeem-code listicles and other churn content that rots faster than it can be verified.
• Revenue precision beyond what estimators publish; third-party estimates are always labeled as estimates.
• Predictions about banner schedules or unannounced content.

Neutral voice and independence

Pages describe; they do not sell or condemn. Games are not scored, spending is not moralized, and mechanics are explained with their trade-offs stated plainly. Nobody is paid for coverage, there are no affiliate links, and publisher relationships, if any ever exist, will be disclosed on the about page.

Corrections

Corrections outrank everything else in the edit queue. File one through the issue trackerwith a link to a primary source; when a correction lands, the page's date fields update, and the full change history stays public in the repository. Substantive corrections are noted in the commit log rather than silently overwritten.

Style rules that protect accuracy

• Dated claims: anything that can drift says "as of" with a date, and comparison rows carry per-row check dates.
• Numbers keep their units and their scope (per banner, per account, mobile-only, and so on).
• No hype vocabulary; if a sentence would fit in a press release, it gets rewritten.
• Em dashes are not used anywhere on this site.