Editorial Policy

Last updated: July 31, 2026

This policy describes how content on this site is researched, written, verified, published and maintained. It exists so that a reader can judge how much weight to put on a figure before acting on it, and so that anyone who finds an error knows exactly how to get it fixed. It applies to every page on the site without exception, including pages that carry affiliate links.

Our editorial principles

Four principles govern everything published here. Accuracy comes first: every factual claim must be traceable to a source we can name, and a claim we cannot trace does not get published as fact. Independence second: commercial relationships have no influence over what a page says. Transparency third: authorship, dates, sourcing limits and monetisation are disclosed on the page rather than buried. Currency fourth: a page that is no longer true is a liability, so maintenance carries the same weight as publication.

We take those principles seriously because our readers spend money on the basis of what they read here. Someone deciding where to place a first advertising budget, or which network to route their site inventory through, is making a decision with a real financial outcome. That is a different standard of care from writing entertainment copy, and we hold ourselves to it.

How a page is made

Step 1, defining the decision. We start from the query and the decision behind it rather than from a keyword. Before drafting, we write down the questions a reader must have answered in order to act, including the questions they have not thought to ask yet. If we cannot answer those questions with material we can verify, the page is not written.

Step 2, gathering primary material. We register on the platform wherever registration is free and no deposit is required, and we work through whatever the interface exposes: pricing tools, format lists, targeting options, reporting, documentation and the published terms. Registration-free observation is a real form of evidence and we report it as such, naming what was checked and on what date.

Step 3, cross-checking everything else. Figures that cannot be observed directly, such as minimum deposits that appear only at the funding step, are cross-checked across independent current sources. Where those sources disagree, we publish the disagreement rather than picking whichever number reads better.

Step 4, drafting. The person who did the research writes the page. We do not commission writing from people who have not handled the material, because that is how errors get laundered into confident prose. The author is free in their conclusions, including the conclusion that a platform is a poor fit for a given reader.

Step 5, verification. Before publication every number, date, name and claim in the draft is checked back against the material gathered in steps 2 and 3. Anything without a source is cut or labelled. Anything sourced only to a secondary listing is labelled as such in the visible text, not in a footnote.

Step 6, publication and review. The page goes live with an author byline, a link to the author's profile and the date its sources were checked. It is revisited when the platform changes terms, when a reader reports an error, and on a scheduled basis regardless of whether anything is known to have changed. Our page on Popunder Ad Network is a worked example of all six steps.

How we verify facts

Our source hierarchy is fixed and we apply it in order. Highest weight goes to primary material published by the platform itself: terms and conditions, documentation, API references, and figures visible inside the account interface. Next comes direct observation of the platform's behaviour, which we report as observation with a date attached rather than as a permanent property of the service.

Below that sit standards bodies and technical specifications, which we use to check claims that platforms make about compliance. A network describing its inventory as meeting an industry standard is making a claim about specifications, not about certification, and we say so where the distinction matters.

Directory listings, aggregator profiles and competitor articles occupy the bottom of the hierarchy and are never treated as a source of fact. They are read to understand what the market already says so we can identify gaps, and nothing more. Most stale figures in this category can be traced to one directory copying another, and adopting them would make us part of that chain.

When a figure cannot be verified at all, we write that we looked for it and did not find it. An honest gap is more useful to a reader than a confident number with nothing behind it, and it tells the reader precisely which question to put to the platform themselves.

Editorial independence

Some links on this site earn us commission. That relationship is disclosed on the pages that carry it and in our terms of use, and it is structurally separated from editorial decisions.

No advertiser or partner sees a page before it is published. No partner can pay for placement, for a higher position in a comparison table, or for the removal of a limitation. Table order follows a rule stated on the page itself. We publish limitations of partner platforms in the same prominence as their strengths, including cases where a partner is more expensive or less automated than an alternative we earn nothing from.

If a partner makes favourable coverage a condition of the relationship, we end the relationship rather than the coverage. We do not remove or quietly soften an accurate negative statement at a partner's request.

Corrections

We publish figures that change, so errors are inevitable and we would rather hear about them than not. Send the page address and the correct information to [email protected], ideally with a source we can check; other routes are on the contact page and your correspondence is handled under the privacy policy.

We aim to review reported errors within two business days. Where the report is confirmed, the page is corrected and the check date updated. Where a correction changes the substance of what a page recommended, we note the change and its date on the page rather than editing silently. Where a report is not confirmed, we reply explaining what we checked and why the original stands.

We do not delete pages to make errors disappear. A page that has become obsolete is marked as obsolete and kept, so anyone who acted on it can see what changed.

Who may write here

Contributors must have direct working experience of the market they cover, on either the buy or sell side, and must have handled the platform they are writing about. Reviews assembled from secondary sources are not published under any byline.

Every contributor discloses conflicts of interest before drafting, including accounts they hold, relationships with platforms and any commercial arrangement outside this site. Every page is signed with a real name linked to a profile that describes the person's actual background. Anonymous content and invented personas are not published. Current authorship is documented on the author page, and the broader position of the site is set out in about.