Editorial Policy

Last updated: March 12, 2026

PredictionScout’s value depends entirely on editorial independence. If readers can’t trust that our scores reflect platform quality rather than commission rates, the site has no reason to exist. This page documents exactly how we maintain that independence.

The Core Commitment

Every platform we review, we research thoroughly. Every score we assign, we explain. Every recommendation we make, we disclose whether we earn a commission. If a platform is bad, we say so — even if they’re paying us.

That commitment is enforced through eight non-negotiable editorial principles, a documented correction policy, and a structural separation between editorial decisions and affiliate revenue.

Eight Editorial Principles

These govern every piece of content on the site. They are not aspirational — they are operational rules that apply to every review, comparison, and guide we publish.

1. We Never Recommend a Platform We Haven’t Researched Thoroughly

Every review is built on public fee schedules, regulatory filings, user review analysis across Trustpilot, BBB, Reddit, and App Store data, and community research. We research withdrawal experiences, customer support responsiveness, fee structures, and regulatory compliance before assigning a score.

If a platform hasn’t been fully researched, we say so. Partial data is disclosed, and scores based on limited information are flagged in the review.

2. Affiliate Relationships Are Disclosed Up Front

You know how we make money before you read the first paragraph of any review. Affiliate disclosure boxes appear at the top of every review and comparison page — not buried in a footer or hidden behind a link.

Each review notes whether we have an affiliate relationship with the platform and the general nature of the commission structure (CPA, revenue share, or none).

3. Platform Limitations Get Equal Space to Strengths

Read our Kalshi review — the highest-scoring platform on the site at 7.4/10. You’ll find extensive coverage of its withdrawal problems (5.0/10) and customer support failures (4.0/10). That’s not an accident. It’s the principle in action.

If a platform is strong in regulation but weak in user experience, both get full coverage. We don’t bury weaknesses in a single sentence at the bottom.

4. Content Is Updated When Platforms Change

Prediction markets evolve fast. Regulatory rulings, fee changes, new market categories, security incidents — these affect our scores and recommendations.

• Regulatory changes: Content updated within 48 hours
• Fee changes, feature changes, significant UX changes: Updated within one week
• Platform retesting: Full re-evaluation every 6 months

Every score change is logged with the date and reason.

5. Rankings Reflect Methodology, Not Commission Rates

If a platform pays us well and scores poorly, the poor score gets published. If a platform doesn’t pay us and scores well, it still gets recommended. Commission rates do not appear anywhere in the scoring methodology.

Our scoring framework uses 9 weighted categories with defined rubrics and score ranges. The criteria, weights, and rubric definitions are all public. Anyone can audit a score against the rubric.

6. Risk Warnings Are Integrated, Not Boilerplate

You won’t find a page of legal boilerplate at the bottom of our reviews. Instead, risk context appears in the sections where it’s relevant — fee sections discuss cost risk, regulatory sections discuss legal risk, withdrawal sections discuss liquidity risk.

This approach means risk information actually gets read, not skipped over as standard disclaimers.

7. No Political Predictions or Opinions

We cover prediction market mechanics for elections and political events. We explain how contracts work, what prices mean, and how to interpret market signals. We never tell you who will win, which party to support, or how to interpret results politically.

This applies to all political markets — federal, state, international. Our job is to review the platforms, not the politics.

8. Platform Failures Are Documented Prominently

When platforms have problems, we cover them as prominently as their strengths. Recent examples documented in our reviews:

• Kalshi NFL payout controversy (January 2026) — Documented in the Kalshi review
• Polymarket security breach (December 2025) — Documented in the Polymarket review
• FanDuel/Nevada gaming license dispute — Documented in the FanDuel Predicts review

These incidents affect platform safety scores and are factored into our methodology. Covering them honestly is more important than protecting an affiliate relationship.

Correction Policy

We hold ourselves to a high standard of accuracy, and we respond quickly when we fall short.

• Factual errors: Corrected within 24 hours of confirmation
• Correction notices: Posted at the top of the affected page with the date and description of the change
• Score adjustments: If a correction affects a category score, the composite score is recalculated and the change is logged
• Reporting errors: Use our Contact page or reach out on X (Twitter)

We do not silently edit content. If something was wrong and we fixed it, you’ll know.

Update Cadence

Content freshness matters for YMYL topics. Here’s how we keep information current:

Every content update includes the revision date. Significant score changes include a changelog entry explaining what changed and why.

Editorial Independence from Advertisers

PredictionScout’s editorial operation is structurally separated from affiliate revenue. Here’s what that means in practice:

• No pre-publication review: Platforms do not see reviews before they go live
• No veto power: Platforms cannot request removal of negative coverage
• No score negotiation: Scores are determined by published rubrics, not by conversation with platform representatives
• No sponsored content: We do not accept paid articles, sponsored reviews, or advertorial content
• No advertising: We do not sell display ads, banner ads, or promotional placements

If a platform disagrees with a score, they have the same option as any reader: point to the published rubric and make a factual case for why the score should change. If they’re right, we update the score — and document the reason.

Who Writes PredictionScout Content

All content is written and maintained by Randy Smith, PredictionScout’s founder. Randy has years of experience in technical analysis, active trading, and building consumer finance websites in the credit industry — a sector subject to the same YMYL scrutiny and editorial standards that apply to prediction market content.

As the site grows, any additional contributors will be identified by name with their qualifications disclosed. Anonymous content is not published on PredictionScout.

Common Questions

Who writes PredictionScout content?

All content is written and maintained by Randy Smith, PredictionScout’s founder. His background in consumer finance publishing and active trading is detailed on the About page.

How do you handle conflicts of interest?

Affiliate relationships are disclosed at the top of every review. Scores are determined by a published 9-category methodology with defined rubrics. Commission rates do not factor into scoring. If a platform pays well but scores poorly, the poor score gets published.

What happens if an affiliate partner asks you to change a score?

The score stays. Platforms have no editorial influence over PredictionScout content. They can point to the published rubric and make a factual case — the same option available to any reader. If they’re right on the facts, we update the score and document why.

How can I report an error or inaccuracy?

Use our Contact page, or reach out on X (Twitter) or LinkedIn. Confirmed errors are corrected within 24 hours with a correction notice added to the top of the affected page.