Editorial Policy

Content Workflow

Event Trading Hub is built as a reference hub and tools hub, not a volume publishing site. New pages are planned around reader problems: understanding how a market works, comparing platform rules, checking fees or limits, reading a historical event example, or using a calculator or scanner.

1. Define the reader job. Each page should answer a specific educational, platform-research, or tool-use question.
2. Collect source context. Platform and market claims are checked before they are presented as facts.
3. Separate facts from interpretation. Source-backed claims are distinguished from editorial judgment, use-case fit, and risk framing.
4. Review for safety and clarity. Pages avoid profit promises, unsupported recommendations, and language that pressures readers to risk money.
5. Publish with QA. Public WordPress pages are checked for indexability, links, readability, mobile layout, and dark-theme readability when materially updated.

How AI May Be Used

Event Trading Hub may use AI tools to help with outlines, draft organization, editing, summaries of already collected notes, formatting, internal QA checklists, and code or data-processing helpers.

AI is not treated as a source of truth. AI-generated text is not enough to verify a platform rule, fee, limit, market outcome, legal status, or current availability. Those claims need source review before publication.

The final review, fact-checking, correction decision, disclosure decision, and publication decision are made by a human editor. The site does not hide AI assistance when explaining its editorial workflow.

Human Review

Before publication or a material update, the editor reviews the page for accuracy, source strength, reader usefulness, tone, and risk language. The review is especially strict for time-sensitive claims such as fees, limits, platform access, market categories, settlement rules, legal status, affiliate status, and product availability.

• Educational pages are checked for plain-language explanations and clear risk context.
• Platform reviews are checked against the platform’s official materials and visible caveats.
• Tool pages are checked for calculation logic, labels, and reader-facing disclaimers.
• Pages that mention monetization must keep disclosure language separate from editorial conclusions.

Source Standards

Checking Numbers And Market Data

Numbers are checked against the strongest available source for the claim. For platform data, that usually means official fees, limits, terms, help-center pages, and platform disclosures. For market examples, that means the market question, resolution criteria, timestamp context, and the platform where the example appeared.

When data comes from a live API, cache, or tool, the page should make the source and refresh context understandable. Readers should not treat a cached snapshot as a promise that the current market, price, fee, or platform rule is unchanged.

Update Policy

Pages are updated when new source evidence changes a material claim, when a platform changes a rule or product, when a reader reports a supported correction, or when an editorial review finds outdated wording. Reviews, comparison pages, and database-driven pages receive closer source attention than stable definitions.

Important pages may show last-updated or last-verified language. A date means the page was checked or edited at that time; it does not mean every external platform rule will remain unchanged after that date.

Corrections Policy

Readers can report factual errors, outdated platform details, broken source links, unclear disclosures, or confusing risk language through the Contact page. Useful correction requests include the page URL, the exact claim in question, and the official or primary source that supports the change.

If a correction is accepted, the affected page should be updated directly. Material corrections should also be reflected in update notes or a checkpoint when that context is useful for readers.

Review Policy

Platform reviews are written to explain source-backed fit, limitations, risks, and open questions. They are not “best platform” rankings and should not imply that any venue is suitable for every reader.

• Reviews should identify what the platform is, who it may fit, and what a reader should verify before using it.
• Fees, funding, availability, settlement, and legal or regulatory context should be presented conservatively.
• Missing or uncertain facts should be marked as unknown, partial, or needing recheck.
• Review conclusions should not be shaped by affiliate or referral potential.

Affiliate And Disclosure Policy

Event Trading Hub does not add affiliate, referral, sponsored, or paid-placement links unless the relationship and official program terms have been verified and the operator has approved the exact link. If monetized links are added later, the relevant page must disclose the relationship clearly.

Disclosure should not be buried. Monetization must remain separate from editorial judgment, and a platform should not receive more positive coverage because of a commercial relationship.

Related Trust Pages And References

• About Event Trading Hub explains who runs the site and what the site does and does not do.
• Machiawelli explains the author and editor behind the site’s published articles.
• Prediction Market Platforms shows how platform facts are presented with source and verification context.
• Platform Finder helps readers narrow the platform set by use case without presenting the result as a recommendation.
• Prediction Market Scanner shows how live or cached market data is presented as research context rather than advice.