How We Test
How We Score Every Psychic Reading Platform The same sources, the same rubric, every single time, so a ranking here means something you can check for yourself. Our Process Read the platform’s own pricing page. We note exactly what it discloses before signup, and what it doesn’t. Read the terms of service, help center, and […]
Last updated August 5, 2026
On this page
How We Score Every Psychic Reading Platform
The same sources, the same rubric, every single time, so a ranking here means something you can check for yourself.
Our Process
- Read the platform’s own pricing page. We note exactly what it discloses before signup, and what it doesn’t.
- Read the terms of service, help center, and any dedicated guarantee page. We quote the refund or satisfaction-guarantee wording directly rather than paraphrase it.
- Read whatever the platform publishes about reader vetting. An application page, a certification claim, a “how we screen readers” page — we note whether the language is specific or just marketing.
- Check what’s disclosed about service breadth. Formats offered, hours, languages, mobile app availability.
- Check for trust and disclosure signals. A named, identifiable company, a working complaint channel, and whether “free minutes” offers are advertised with their real conditions attached.
- Time how many clicks it takes to find the real price and the real refund rule, starting from the homepage.
- Record “not published” when a fact isn’t published anywhere we can find. That’s a scoreable outcome, not a blank we fill in with a guess.
- Re-run the rubric on a fixed schedule, so a score doesn’t sit unchanged after a platform quietly rewrites its terms.
- Score independently, twice, from the same sources, before anything publishes. A gap of more than one point in any category triggers a third read before the page goes live.
The Rubric — 100 Points, Six Categories
| Category | Weight | What We’re Actually Checking |
|---|---|---|
| Price Transparency | 25 | Is per-minute or package pricing published plainly, or buried behind signup? Is it visible for more than one tier or format? |
| Refund & Guarantee Terms | 25 | The strength, specificity, and independent verifiability of the published guarantee — time limits, caps, exclusions, and how you’re actually meant to claim it. |
| Reader Vetting Disclosure | 20 | What the platform publishes about how it screens or certifies readers. Vague “hand-picked” language with no specifics scores low. |
| Service Breadth & Availability | 10 | Formats offered, hours, languages, and mobile app availability, as published. |
| Trust & Disclosure Signals | 10 | An identifiable, named company, a clear terms-of-service page, a working complaint channel, and honest disclosure of “free minutes” conditions. |
| Site Usability & Clarity | 10 | How directly the real price and the real refund rule can be found starting from the homepage. |
Total: 100 points. Every score is derived only from what’s published or independently observable on the platform’s own public pages, never from an imagined session. Where a fact genuinely can’t be observed at all, rather than merely being undisclosed, we mark that dimension “insufficient published evidence” and score it at the floor of the category rather than a flat zero — see the worked example on the Rankings page for what that looks like in practice.
What This Is (and Isn’t)
This is a documentation review, not a mystery-shopping report. Nobody on this desk creates an account, pays for a session, or interacts with a reader on any platform we cover. Everything scored here comes from what a platform makes publicly available about itself. That’s a deliberate trade-off. It means we can’t tell you whether one specific reader was a good match on one specific day. It does mean every score on this site traces to a source you can check yourself, right now, without spending anything, and that a platform can’t buy or fake its way to a better score just because a mystery shopper had a good afternoon.
A platform with vague or missing published terms scores lower here regardless of what any individual session might be like, because those terms are exactly what you’re agreeing to before you ever get a reader on the line.
What We Never Do
- Score a platform on anything we haven’t personally read on its own public pages
- Paraphrase a refund or guarantee clause when we can quote it directly
- Let affiliate commission size influence a score or a ranking position
- Estimate, infer, or assume a fact a platform hasn’t published — “not published” is scored as-is, never guessed at
A Note on Confidence
Not every published page is equally reachable. Some help centers block a standard page fetch outright; some marketing sites are JavaScript applications that render nothing without a browser running scripts. When that happens, we say so on the review, and where we could only confirm wording through a search-engine snippet of the platform’s own URL rather than an independently rendered page, we score that fact at reduced confidence rather than treat a snippet the same as a page we read ourselves. A platform doesn’t get credit for detail we couldn’t verify.
Review Cadence
Full rubric reviews run on a quarterly cycle, or sooner if we’re notified of a material policy change. The Rankings page always states the date of the last full pass.
Corrections
If a platform disputes a specific factual claim on this site, see our Editorial Policy for how corrections are handled.