Editorial Policy
This page sets out the rules the analysis on this site is written under, the commercial relationship that funds it, and the placements and claims that are refused regardless of what they would pay. It exists because the subject is money moving between advertising platforms and publishers, and a reader acting on a wrong or bought figure loses real income. Anyone assessing whether this site can be trusted should be able to read the constraints instead of inferring them from tone.
The commercial relationship, disclosed in full
This site has a referral relationship with AdsCompass, one of the seven platforms that appears in the comparison table on the main page. Buttons here link to that platform's sign-up page carrying tracking parameters that identify this domain as the referring source. If a reader follows one and registers a publisher account, the site may receive compensation. Nothing is triggered by reading a page, and nothing by clicking alone.
The reader pays nothing for this. Registration terms, payout floors, schedules and fees are identical whether a publisher arrives through this site or types the platform's address directly. The parameters record where a referral came from; they do not alter an account, a rate or a threshold. Links to platform documentation, regulators, court records and industry bodies carry no arrangement of any kind and generate no revenue, and exist purely so a figure can be checked at its source.
What that relationship does not buy
It does not buy a rating or a ranking, because this site publishes neither. Comparison tables carry factual columns only — founding year, thresholds by rail, schedules, days to cash, formats — and no score, star, grade or verdict appears anywhere. The word "best" is never used as a conclusion here, because payout terms are multidimensional and the right platform for a tube site withdrawing to a bank is not the right one for a blog withdrawing to a crypto wallet.
No competitor is removed for it. Six other platforms appear in the same table with their own figures intact, including several with payout floors well below the partner's. Silence about the partner's weaknesses is not on offer either: AdsCompass carries the highest e-wallet minimum of the seven listed and defaults to Net30 on RTB accounts, and both appear in the same table and the same limitations column as everything else. Pre-publication review forms no part of the arrangement, and the platform does not see pages before they go live.
Placement rules for the commercial links
Commercial placement on this site is limited to one category: buttons linking to the sign-up page of the platform named above. No display advertising runs here, no third-party ad tags are served, and no sponsored articles are accepted. Those buttons may appear in the site header, once in the opening block of an analytical page, in clearly separated blocks between sections, and in the first column of a comparison table beneath a platform name.
In that table the partner row carries a live button and every other row carries an inactive equivalent of the same shape, so the layout stays consistent and no row is visually promoted by the absence of a control. What a commercial link may never do is sit inside a paragraph of analysis, imitate a source citation, or appear next to a figure in a way implying that the figure endorses the platform. A reader must be able to tell at a glance which elements are editorial and which are commercial.
Commercial arrangements this site refuses
Paid placement inside a comparison table, and paid changes to the order of rows, are refused outright. The table's only value is that its contents are decided by documentation rather than by budget, and selling a position would destroy that in one transaction while producing revenue for exactly as long as it took a reader to notice.
Sponsored posts, guest articles carrying commercial links and link insertions into existing published pages are not accepted. Any arrangement conditional on removing, softening or omitting a competitor's figures is refused, and so is advertising for services that resell traffic as visit packages, because those are a different product and listing them alongside ad networks would mislead the reader the comparison exists to serve.
Claims the text will not make
Invented first-hand measurements are the hard line. Where the author has not run a live account on a platform, the text says what the platform states and what its schedule implies, and marks which is which. A figure traceable only to a secondary write-up never appears unqualified; such figures are labelled unverified in place or omitted, and one is currently labelled that way on the main page. Guarantees of earnings, fill rate or approval are never implied, because none of the three sits within any publisher's control and all three depend on inventory quality the site cannot see.
Legal, tax and financial advice fall outside what this site does. The age-verification statutes discussed on the main page are described in general terms with bill numbers and a link to the underlying opinion, and whether a specific site falls within a specific statute is a question for a qualified lawyer. Author credentials are never fabricated: the author holds no degree in this field, there is no relevant qualification to hold, and inventing one would be both checkable and pointless.
Author accountability and verification dates
Every analytical page is bylined and the author's background, working method and stated limits are public on the author page. The verification routine behind each figure is documented separately in how we check figures, including the four-tier source hierarchy and what happens when a platform's own pages contradict each other. Where the author could not confirm something, the text says so in place; there are currently three such flags live on the main page.
Pages carry a visible verification date that refers to when the underlying documentation was last read, not to when a sentence was last reworded. When a figure changes, that date changes with it. Nothing is silently swapped and left looking as though it always read that way.
Corrections
Five things count as a factual error. A figure that no longer matches the platform's own documentation. A figure that never matched it. A claim attributed to a source that does not support it. A calculation that does not follow from the numbers shown. A dead link on a material claim. Disagreement with a judgement is not an error: whether a Net7 schedule matters more than an eight per cent eCPM difference is an argument, and it is made openly in the text so it can be argued back.
These rules apply to every page, but they are visible mainly on Adult Ad Networks, where the comparison table, the flagged source conflicts and the unverified label all follow from them. The corresponding limits on what a reader may rely on are in the terms and conditions, and the same commitment to specificity governs the privacy policy and the cookie policy.
Errors on payout figures are corrected as a priority because a reader may be planning cash flow around the number. Where a platform's own pages disagree, the correction is normally to publish both with a note. Reports reach the editorial desk through the contact page and move faster when they include the document that contradicts the published figure. The wider context for all of this — scope, funding and jurisdiction — is on the about page.