How we work
Editorial policy
This page sets out who writes for Pravitel, how we establish that what we publish is true, how the site is paid for, and the specific things we will not do — including the things an advertiser might ask us for. It is written to be held against us.
1. Who writes here
Pravitel is a small editorial operation. Richard Hill is the editor and the director of publication, and is responsible for everything published on this site. Every article carries a named byline and a publication date. We do not publish under house pseudonyms, and we do not publish anonymous copy.
Where an article has been updated after publication, the date of the last review is shown alongside the publication date.
2. How we establish facts
Our subject is video games, which are software that changes every few weeks. The practical consequence is that a statement of fact needs a source and a date, not a confident tone.
- Primary sources first. For anything about a game — its price, its platforms, its system requirements, what it contains — the publisher’s own store listing, patch notes and documentation come first.
- Reference sources second. For history and chronology we use published reference material and named press coverage, and we say which.
- Everything checkable is cited. Articles carry a sources section listing what was consulted and when.
- Numbers are quoted, not estimated. If we cannot source a figure, we do not print one. We would rather write “we could not establish this” than invent a plausible number.
- Uncertainty is marked as uncertainty. Where something is likely but unconfirmed, or where a mechanic has changed and we are not sure of the current state, the text says so.
- Opinion is labelled opinion. A judgement about whether a game is good, or whether its monetisation is fair, is ours and is presented as ours.
- The publisher prevails. Every article states that where our description and the game publisher’s own current information diverge, theirs is correct and ours is out of date.
3. How this site is funded
Pravitel is published by Aurora Casket Company s.r.o. and is funded by advertising, specifically by affiliate partnerships. When a reader follows a link we have marked as a partner link and then signs up with the advertiser, Aurora Casket Company s.r.o. is paid a commission by that advertiser or by the affiliate network acting for them.
We take no payment from readers. There is no subscription, no paywall and no donation button. We also run no display advertising, no sponsored-post slots sold as editorial, and no native advertising.
How the commission is disclosed
- A disclosure bar sits at the very top of every page that carries a commercial link, above everything else on the page.
- A second, fuller disclosure box appears immediately after the headline, before any promotional content.
- Each individual button is labelled Partner link in the visible text of the button itself, including in the sidebar.
- Each button has a note under it repeating that we earn a commission and that it costs the reader nothing extra.
- Each commercial link carries
rel="sponsored nofollow noopener"in the page source, so that search engines and automated tools can identify it as paid.
The disclosure is deliberately repetitive. A reader should not be able to reach a commercial link on this site without having passed a disclosure first.
4. Advertiser independence
These are commitments, not aspirations:
- No copy approval. No advertiser, affiliate network or agency sees an article before it is published.
- No removal of criticism. An advertiser cannot have a drawback deleted. Our page on Enlisted quotes a 5-out-of-10 review and discusses kernel-level anti-cheat, because both are true and a reader needs both.
- Commission rate does not affect placement. We do not rank, order or recommend according to what pays best.
- No payment for a verdict. We do not accept money in exchange for a positive conclusion, a score, or the removal of a competitor.
- The reader can always go direct. Nothing on this site is locked behind a partner link, and we say on every commercial page that you are free to find the advertiser yourself.
- If we would not recommend it, we do not carry it. If we concluded an advertiser’s offer was not worth a reader’s time, the correct outcome is to drop the partnership, not to soften the article.
5. What we refuse to do
Much of what makes affiliate pages untrustworthy is a short, well-known list of techniques. We do not use any of them, and we would rather lose the revenue than start.
| We do not | Why |
|---|---|
| Invent testimonials or “reader stories” | A story presented as a real reader’s experience must be a real reader’s experience. We publish none, rather than write fiction in the first person. |
| Invent reviews, star ratings or scores | We quote scores that other named outlets actually published, with attribution. We do not manufacture an aggregate, a star count or a “9.4/10” badge. |
| Manufacture urgency | No countdown timers, no “only 3 places left”, no “offer ends tonight” unless the advertiser has published a real, verifiable deadline. |
| Promise results | No guaranteed outcomes, no income claims, no “you will” where the honest word is “you might”. |
| Fabricate statistics or specifications | Every number on this site is sourced. A number we cannot source does not get published. |
| Imply an endorsement that does not exist | We are not affiliated with the brands we write about, and we say so on every page. |
| Disguise advertising as editorial | A commercial link is labelled as commercial, in the visible text, before the click. |
| Use a fake byline, a fake newsroom or a fake location | The publisher, its registration number and its postal address are in the legal notice. |
| Track readers to make the page pay better | No cookies, no analytics, no pixels. See the cookie policy. |
| Publish AI-generated copy without a human editor standing behind it | Whatever tools are used in drafting, a named human checks every factual claim against a source and takes responsibility for it. |
6. Images and diagrams
The illustrations on this site are original SVG diagrams drawn by the editorial team for the article they appear in. We do not publish product screenshots, promotional art or stock photography on advertising-funded pages, because doing so raises copyright and trademark problems that a small publisher has no business creating. Each diagram has real alternative text and a caption, and the caption says that it is an original drawing.
Diagrams are schematic. They illustrate how something works; they are not a depiction of the game’s interface or artwork.
7. Corrections
We get things wrong. The test of a publication is what it does next.
- Tell us. Write to info@pravitel.online. You do not need to prove anything; pointing at the sentence is enough to make us check it.
- We check it against a source. Not against our memory.
- We fix it quickly. A clear factual error is corrected as soon as we have confirmed it, normally within a few working days.
- We say we fixed it. Anything more than a typographical slip is logged, with a date and a description of what was wrong, on the corrections page. Substantive corrections are also noted in the article itself.
- We do not quietly delete. A page that turns out to be wrong is corrected in public, not removed and forgotten.
- Right of reply. If we have written something about you or your company that you believe is inaccurate or unfair, write to the editor. A reply will be published alongside the article where that is the proportionate remedy.
8. Complaints
Complaints about editorial content go to the director of publication, Richard Hill, at info@pravitel.online or at the postal address in the legal notice. We acknowledge complaints and aim to answer substantively within ten working days. Complaints about an advertiser’s own website, product, billing or refunds must go to that advertiser, because we are not a party to your contract with them — but tell us anyway, because a pattern of complaints is a reason to end a partnership.
9. Review of this policy
This policy is reviewed at least once a year and whenever our funding model changes. The version in force is the one on this page, dated at the top. Changes are logged on the corrections and changes page.