Published: September 11, 2026
Coverage that helps players decide
Gamersvora covers games and gaming hardware through news, reviews, guides, comparisons and discovery tools. Our aim is to explain what matters to a player: what has changed, what is worth considering, and what the limitations are.
This policy sets expectations for our work. It is not a claim that every product mentioned has been personally tested. The evidence and scope should be clear in the individual article.
Sources, verification and attribution
Factual reporting should identify the evidence behind material claims. Original announcements, developer or manufacturer documentation, direct statements and clearly described testing are preferable to repeated second-hand claims. When another publication breaks a story, its reporting should be credited.
Rumours, leaks and unconfirmed reports must be labelled as such. An estimate should not become a confirmed release date, and a manufacturer's performance claim should not be presented as our own measured result. Where sources disagree or details remain uncertain, the article should say so.
Make the type of coverage clear
News reports an announcement or development. Opinion offers an interpretation. A hands-on review evaluates direct experience, while a preview describes an incomplete or limited experience. Research-based comparisons and buying guides should explain their source material and selection criteria.
Headlines and images should accurately represent the article. Quotes need attribution, and illustrations or concept images should not be passed off as official screenshots or product photographs. Read How We Review & Test for our assessment standards.
Commercial relationships and conflicts
Advertising is not an offer to buy a positive verdict, review score or undisclosed editorial placement. Sponsored content should be visibly identified. Affiliate links should carry a clear disclosure explaining the potential commission.
Review copies, supplied products, loaned hardware and other support relevant to an assessment should be disclosed in that coverage. Contributors should raise relationships or personal interests that could affect impartiality before accepting an assignment. Recommendations need an editorial explanation, including drawbacks and appropriate alternatives.
Corrections and meaningful updates
Readers can report an error through our Contact page. Include the article URL, the disputed detail and a supporting source when available.
A confirmed factual error should be corrected. A material correction should explain what was wrong and what changed in the affected article. Routine spelling or formatting fixes do not need the same treatment. New information, patches or retesting should be distinguished from corrections to the original reporting.
A changed date alone should not imply a fresh review or new testing. When an assessment changes, the reason should be explained. If a disputed point cannot yet be verified, that uncertainty should remain visible.
AI tools and editorial responsibility
These standards apply whether work is produced manually or with software assistance. If AI tools are used, the author or editor remains responsible for checking facts, sources, quotations and the final wording. Generated output is not evidence of hands-on experience or a substitute for a source.
AI must not be used to invent testing, interviews, author credentials or citations. Generated or materially altered visuals should be labelled where readers could mistake them for authentic evidence. Material use of generated content should be disclosed when it affects how a reader should interpret the work.
Questions about our work
Use an article's byline and our Authors & Contributors directory to explore published work. Raise sourcing, disclosure or correction concerns through the Contact page. Please describe the specific issue so it can be assessed.
For advertising proposals, use the separate Advertise page. For personal information requests, see our Privacy Policy.