A transparent, repeatable and reviewable process applied to every published review.
Every published score decomposes into the same six parts. Expand a pillar to see what editors record and how much it moves the final figure.
Weights are fixed across the whole library so two portals reviewed months apart stay comparable.
The distance between landing on a portal and reaching the first playable screen, measured across browsers on a standard domestic connection.
The distance between landing on a portal and reaching the first playable screen, measured across browsers on a standard domestic connection.
Whether the mobile build holds up against the desktop one: layout integrity, tap target sizing and whether a session survives a change of device.
Whether the library still holds attention after the first hour — variety of modes, update cadence and the shape of long-term progression.
How clearly a portal explains itself: information hierarchy, tone of the copy and how quickly a first-time reader understands what is on offer.
Publisher transparency and the documentation a portal publishes: ownership, contact routes, privacy and cookie information.
Evidence that a portal is actively maintained and that players hear back from the team: forums, patch notes and response cadence.
The sequence is fixed, so nothing about the order of publication depends on anything other than the queue.
A portal enters the queue when it is publicly accessible, names its publisher and documents what it offers. Reader suggestions join the same queue with no priority attached.
Editors run structured sessions on desktop, tablet and phone, logging load times, interface behaviour and how far the content carries the first few hours.
Notes are mapped onto the six weighted pillars. The review is drafted with strengths, limitations and the type of reader the portal actually suits.
Every published entry is revisited on a rolling six-month schedule, and sooner when a portal changes materially. Updates carry a dated note.