Updated September 2, 2026
Our editorial standard is straightforward: identify what is being claimed, show what supports it, and be honest about what is still uncertain.
Three kinds of information
Checkable facts
Dates, service features, research findings, prices, and policy terms should have an identifiable source and enough context to interpret them. Time-sensitive information needs a current check.
Beliefs and interpretations
A tarot meaning, spiritual explanation, or personal account should be presented as such—not converted into a medical fact, universal rule, or guaranteed prediction.
Commercial material
Affiliate links and provider-supplied listings should be distinguishable from our editorial advice. Commissions and coverage limitations should be disclosed.
What a listing does—and does not—mean
The reader directory uses a third-party integration. It is not a controlled test, professional licensing system, or ranking based on independently verified psychic accuracy. Provider ratings, user counts, descriptions, and promotional badges retain their provider origin.
If we publish an individual review, it should explain the information considered, the date of observation, any direct experience, and limitations. We do not claim a first-hand test simply because a profile has been displayed on the site.
Sources and higher-stakes subjects
Health and safety statements should be grounded in appropriate authoritative sources. Spiritual language must not be used to diagnose a condition or promise a treatment effect. Articles should direct readers toward qualified help when a topic requires it.
Research should be represented within its actual scope. A study of a related subject does not automatically support a supernatural claim. Anecdotes and testimonials do not substitute for reliable evidence.
Tools, images, and authorship
Automated or AI tools may assist drafting, formatting, or illustration. Their use does not establish expertise, accuracy, or first-hand experience. A generated image is illustrative; it must not be described as a verified client result or a photograph of a named contributor without a factual basis.
Bylines and older biographies are not, on their own, proof of credentials. We do not invent degrees, professional memberships, testing programs, or personal experience to make an article appear authoritative.
Corrections and the archive
The website contains a substantial older archive. We are not claiming that every historical article has received a full fact-check. Priority goes to correcting harmful advice, unsupported guarantees, inaccurate service terms, and misleading descriptions of the website.
Where a material correction changes the meaning, a note can explain the change. Historical pages may remain accessible with an archive notice and search-indexing restrictions instead of being silently erased.
Comments and disagreements
Comments are discussion, not verified testimonials or clinical evidence. They may be moderated for relevance, privacy, spam, and abuse. A comment’s presence is not an endorsement of its claims.
To request a correction, send the page URL, the exact passage, and the reason for the concern. A relevant primary source is helpful. Read our Affiliate Disclosure and Disclaimer for related limitations.