Editorial standard

How we make a guide worth using.

Editorial methodology · Last reviewed August 2, 2026

GameGuideHub is a fan-made guide network, not an official source and not a replacement for a game's own documentation. Our job is narrower: turn a player's practical problem into a clear, testable answer, and be honest when we do not have enough evidence to make a confident claim.

What qualifies for publication

We do not publish a page merely because a game has a search term. A guide needs a specific player question, a useful answer, and a reason to exist beyond repeating a store description or another site's list.

Problem-led: the page starts with a real decision such as choosing a build, surviving an early bottleneck, routing a mission, or comparing two mechanics.
Actionable: tables and recommendations are paired with the conditions that make them useful, including when a recommendation is a bad fit.
Game-specific: examples use the game's own systems, names and failure states rather than interchangeable genre advice.
Readable without ads: the answer must stand on its own; advertising does not replace explanation and there are no popups or autoplay videos.

Our evidence standard

For mechanics, numbers and patch-sensitive claims, we use the strongest available evidence in this order:

Direct observation in the current game version, including repeat checks when a result affects a recommendation.
Official patch notes, in-game tooltips, developer documentation and the game's official community announcements.
Our own structured comparison or calculation, with the assumptions stated on the page.
Community reports used as leads, never treated as official confirmation by themselves.

Limit: coverage is not equally mature across every game in the network. New or early-access games can change faster than we can verify them. When a claim is provisional, the page should say so rather than presenting a guess as a fact.

How a guide is reviewed

Scope: define the player problem and the version or patch the answer targets.
Research: collect in-game observations and official references; separate confirmed mechanics from interpretation.
Draft: explain the recommendation, its trade-offs, and the situations where another choice is better.
Revision: re-check pages after material patches and update the visible revision date when the answer changes.
Correction: reader reports are checked against the same evidence standard. We correct the page instead of silently replacing the claim.

How to read our recommendations

A tier label or build suggestion is a starting point, not a promise of a universal best answer. We prefer role, context and failure-mode explanations because a choice that wins a short fight may be wrong for a long campaign, a blind route, a low-resource run or a different patch.

Where a page includes a data table, the surrounding text should explain what the data measures, what it does not measure, and how a player can use it. We do not present invented sample sizes, fake win rates or unsupported precision as research.

Corrections and rights concerns

If you find an outdated mechanic, wrong number, missing attribution or rights issue, send the URL and the specific concern to contact@gguidehub.com. Developers and rights holders can also use that address for asset or trademark concerns. See the contact page for the categories we handle.

Network status

Each game site is a separate fan-made project with its own coverage depth. The GameGuideHub homepage is an index; the actual guide content lives on the linked game portals. We would rather mark a game as early coverage than make a thin page look like a complete wiki.