A ranking is only useful if it reflects the platforms as they are now, not as they were the last time we tested them. PsychicRank runs a regular re-test cycle on every network in our main ranking, and we re-run a full scoring pass any time something material changes at a platform. This page is a short, honest description of how we do that work and how we keep our editorial decisions separate from the commercial side of the site.
Our regular re-test cycle
Each platform on our list goes through a full re-test on a rolling cycle of about six months. Between full re-tests, we monitor for material changes: policy updates, pricing changes, app updates, support response time changes, and any complaint patterns that show up consistently on independent review sites. We make smaller updates between full re-tests when something material shifts, and we note the date of the most recent update at the top of each individual platform review.
A full re-test involves the same checklist we use when we add a network to the ranking for the first time. We fund a small wallet, take three to five sessions across different reader types, file a real support ticket about a billing question, and document the refund and satisfaction policy in detail. We sample readers across the price range rather than only the most expensive, and we score the experience against our standing rubric.
What triggers an unscheduled re-test
A few specific changes prompt a re-test outside the regular cycle. A platform changing its satisfaction or refund policy. A new app version that meaningfully changes how the wallet, billing or session flow works. Sudden complaints about advisor screening or moderation showing up on independent review sites. Any reports that suggest a network has stopped enforcing its own advisor terms - particularly around prohibited services like curse removal. Changes to introductory offers do not by themselves trigger a re-test, but we update the offer details on the relevant pages so the comparison stays accurate.
None of these automatically lowers a platform's score. They simply open a window for us to look again. If the platform handles the change well, the score may not move at all. If the change made the experience worse for a first-time caller, the score moves.
How we score
The rubric we apply has six weighted components: advisor screening and bench depth, transparency of pricing and the wallet experience, support response quality, the satisfaction or refund policy, the quality of the on-platform reviews and how the platform handles negative feedback, and the overall first-session experience for a new caller. Each component is scored against the same criteria across every platform, with notes that go into the individual review pages.
We do not score on aesthetics or marketing polish. A platform with a beautifully designed homepage and weak advisor screening will score lower than a platform that looks plainer but does the substance well. The first-session experience for a new caller is what matters most to the people we are writing for.
How affiliate revenue fits in
PsychicRank earns affiliate commissions when a reader signs up to a platform through one of our links. That revenue funds the site, including the testing work that produces the rankings. It does not buy placement, and we do not change scores in response to commercial conversations with the networks.
The way we keep this clean in practice is structural: scoring decisions are made by the editorial team using the rubric above, before commercial terms with any platform are discussed. A platform whose score has moved is told about the change at the same time the public ranking is updated, not before. Our advertising disclosure modal sets out the same information; you can find it linked in the footer of every page.
How to flag something we may have missed
If you have noticed a material change at a platform we have not yet caught - a new policy, a meaningful change to the app, a pattern of complaints we have not addressed - email us at the address listed in the site footer. Specific evidence (dates, screenshots, links) is much faster to act on than general impressions, and we genuinely appreciate the help. The goal of the site is to be a useful and current consumer guide, and we cannot keep it that way without the people who actually use the platforms day to day.
For the rest of the consumer-side work that pairs with our re-test cycle, our platform comparison guide walks through the checklist a thoughtful first-time caller can apply themselves before funding a wallet.