How every figure here gets checked before it goes live

Source hierarchy

Sources are ranked, and a lower-ranked source never overrides a higher one. When two sources at the same level disagree and nothing resolves it, the disagreement itself is published.

1. Primary — the network's own documentation. Help center articles, terms of service, payment pages and dated press releases. These settle questions about deposits, payment methods, pricing models and thresholds. When a figure appears here, it is what we publish.
2. Direct observation of the platform. What a dashboard, format page or campaign builder actually shows, including what it fails to show. Where a network's format pages render client-side and the numbers never reach the served HTML, that is itself a finding worth stating rather than a gap to paper over.
3. Marketing pages, labeled as claims. Volume numbers, reach figures and quality assurances from a network's own promotional copy are reported as claims by that network, never as verified fact. None of them are audited.
4. Documented accounts from buyers with access. Walkthroughs written by people who are demonstrably inside the platform can corroborate a primary source or flag a contradiction. They are attributed, never presented as our own experience.
5. Directories and comparison listings — not a source. Aggregator entries are used only as a lead telling us which figure to go and verify. A number that exists only in a directory is published with an explicit note that it is unconfirmed, or it is not published.

What we will not write

We do not publish invented test results. No first-person payout times we did not measure, no conversion rates from campaigns we did not run, no spend figures we cannot substantiate. This is the single most common form of fabrication in traffic-source content, and it is convincing precisely because a reader has no way to check it.

Where our pages use the first person, the claim is restricted to research we actually performed: reading a specific help center on a specific date, finding a contradiction between a press release and a directory, or noticing which label a dashboard puts on the pop format. Professional judgement is written as judgement, so that a recommendation to start at one impression per user per day reads as a recommendation rather than as a measured result.

We also do not write negative claims about a competitor's feature set without checking each platform individually. Saying a control is unavailable elsewhere is the easiest claim in a comparison to disprove, and it is the one that most reliably signals a page written to sell rather than to inform.

The fact-checking pass

Before publication every page goes through the same sequence, and a page that fails any step does not go live until the gap is closed.

• Deposits and thresholds. Each minimum is opened on the network's own help center or terms page, split by payment method where the network splits it, and recorded with a date. Card, wallet, crypto and wire minimums differ inside a single network by an order of magnitude, so a single headline number is treated as incomplete.
• Pricing models. The list of models available for the pop format specifically, not for the platform overall. A network offering automated CPA on push but not on pop is recorded as not offering it on pop.
• Interface naming. Confirmed against the platform's own documentation. This is checked because the same inventory is filed under three different labels across five dashboards.
• Optimization controls. Feature names are taken from the network's own terminology, so that a reader searching the dashboard finds the control we described.
• Rate ranges. Published as market ranges with an explicit statement that they are not a price list, alongside a pointer to the free in-account calculator that gives the reader their own number.
• Every outbound link. Opened and read before publication, and checked again at each review.

Independence from the commercial side

This site earns affiliate commission, disclosed in the footer of every page and explained on the about page. No network can buy a position, a figure or a favourable line. The comparison table names the drawback of the platform we link to most often, and a paid relationship has never removed one.

Our tables carry no scores, star ratings or rankings, and that is a deliberate choice rather than an oversight. A weighted score is the easiest place for a commercial preference to hide, because the weights are invisible to the reader. Columns are restricted to things a reader can verify independently: launch year, deposit floor, pricing models, interface naming, control features. Where we do state a preference, as in the section matching a buyer's situation to a platform, the reasoning is written out so it can be disagreed with.

Corrections

We expect to be wrong sometimes, particularly on figures that move without announcement. If you find an error, send the page and the specific claim to the editorial address on the contact page.

• Within two working days we check the claim against the primary source and reply to say what we found.
• If the error is confirmed the page is corrected and the check date updated the same day.
• If the correction changes a number a reader could have budgeted from the change is noted on the page rather than made silently.
• We do not remove published criticism at the request of a network, an affiliate manager or a partner.
• Correction requests are personal data only to the extent of the email address you write from, handled under our privacy policy and deleted 12 months after your last message.

Review schedule

Entry conditions are rechecked at least every 90 days, and immediately when a network announces a change. Deposit floors, payment-method splits and pricing models are the fastest-moving fields and get priority; format naming and control features change more slowly and are confirmed at each full review. When a page is revised, the check date at the top and in the author block both move.

Anything on the site older than its review window is treated as stale by us before it is treated as stale by a reader, which is the same standard we would want applied to a page we were about to spend money on. Author requirements, the scope of what is verified personally and what is attributed, and the reasoning behind the honesty rules above are described on the author page. The comparison this policy governs is Buy Popunder Traffic, and the legal framing sits in our terms of use.