Policy

Editorial policy

This page is the rulebook for the desk. It describes the rubric, the evidence standard, the review states a record passes through, how corrections work, and where AI may and may not be used.

1. The rubric comes first

The six criteria and their weights were written before any record was drafted, and they are published on the home page.

2. The applied criteria

Rule clarity

The rules must be learnable from the game alone: in-game tutorial, help text or a printed rulebook shipped with it. A community wiki is evidence that clarity failed, not a substitute for it.

25%

Solvability

Every stated puzzle must be reachable and solvable from the game's own information. If a solution requires outside knowledge, the game must say so before the player is committed.

20%

Difficulty curve

The record describes whether challenge escalates and whether a failure is legible — the player can tell what went wrong. We do not record completion times or win rates we cannot verify.

15%

Accessibility

Assessed from the game's own options and accessibility statement: input remapping, keyboard-only play, reliance on colour, text size, and pause or skip controls. Claims are checked against the options menu.

15%

Craft of presentation

Prose, layout, sound and pacing are assessed only where they serve the puzzle. Production budget is not a criterion, and a small studio is not marked down for scale.

15%

Honest listing

The store page, screenshots and trailer must describe the game that is actually delivered. This is judged against the game itself, not against expectations set by genre marketing.

10%

3. Evidence standard

Factual statements in a record should be traceable to material a reader can open: the game's published rules or accessibility statement, its store page, or its developer's own documentation. Sources are listed at the foot of each record.

What we will not do:

We do not publish sales figures, revenue, download counts or team sizes we cannot verify.
We do not invent quotes or attribute statements to people. Records are not based on our own play sessions.
We do not estimate a number and present it as a measurement.
We do not treat a store page's own marketing copy as proof of a game's quality.

4. How a record is published

Records are published under the Isidor Selection Editorial Team. They are drafted with generative AI. Before a record is scheduled, the site owner reads it and approves its scope and the sources it lists. Records have not been edited line by line by a human editor, and no individual is named as an author.

The owner's review checks that the sources are relevant to the topic; it does not re-verify every figure. Records are also compared with their sources in a separate review, and a record in which that review finds a wrong figure, date or source is taken off the site until it is corrected.

5. AI assistance

Generative AI writes the first draft of each record. It is instructed not to invent numbers, dates, quotations or first-hand experience, but a draft can still contain mistakes. Each record shows the label “AI draft, not edited” at its foot, so readers can see how it was produced.

6. Corrections

If you find an error, write to contact@isidor-awards.com with the page address and your source. We correct the record, or take it off the site while it is being fixed.

7. Independence and conflicts

No payment, sponsorship, review copy or gift is accepted in exchange for coverage.
No advertising networks, affiliate links or sponsored placements appear on this site.
The site's owner reads and approves each record before it is published.

8. What this site is not

This is not the Isidor award. That prize ran between 2001 and 2005, was operated by a different organisation, and has ended. This site has a new owner since November 2026, runs no competition and awards nothing. The about page sets out the domain's history in full.

9. Contact

Corrections and objections: contact@isidor-awards.com.