Fact-Checking Policy

Ninja Arcade publishes two kinds of claim: statements about our own games, and statements about the wider web and gaming landscape. Each is checked differently, and this page explains how.

Claims about our own games

Anything we say about a Ninja Arcade game — a control, a timing, a multiplier cap, how the obstacle generator behaves — is verified two ways: by playing the game, and by reading the source file that implements it. When a guide says the combo in Shuriken Sprint caps at five, it is because the code caps it at five.

This is why our guides quote specific numbers. A number that came from the implementation can be checked by anyone; a vague statement cannot.

Claims about the web platform

Statements about browser behaviour, HTML5 Canvas, input events, localStorage or performance are checked against primary documentation from the organisations that define or implement those standards, rather than against summaries on other blogs.

How sources are evaluated

• Primary over secondary. Specifications and official documentation outrank articles describing them.
• Current over old. Web platform behaviour changes. A source that predates a relevant change is not used to describe current behaviour.
• Independent over promotional. Marketing material is not treated as evidence about the thing it is marketing.
• Verifiable over anecdotal. If a claim cannot be checked by a reader, it does not belong in a factual statement.

Claims we refuse to make

Some claims are common in the browser gaming space and are not supportable, so they are not published here:

• That playing arcade games measurably improves reaction time, focus or cognitive performance in everyday life. Practice improves performance at the practised task; anything beyond that requires evidence we are not in a position to provide.
• Player counts, play-time totals, ratings or review scores. We do not collect this data, so we do not report it.
• Rankings such as "the best ninja game on the internet". We can say which of our ten games we think suits a particular player, and why.

Handling outdated information

Every page carries a last-reviewed date. Guides are re-checked whenever the game they describe changes, and a page whose subject has changed materially is updated, replaced or removed rather than left in place.

Corrections process

1. A reader reports a suspected error, or an internal review finds one.
2. The claim is re-checked against the game, the source code or the primary documentation.
3. If the claim is wrong, the page is corrected and its updated date changes.
4. If the error changed the meaning of the page, a visible correction note is added explaining what was wrong and when it was fixed.
5. If the claim turns out to be correct, we reply to the reader explaining the evidence.

How to report an error

Use the contact form, choose the correction topic, and include:

• the page URL,
• the exact sentence you believe is wrong,
• what you believe the correct information is,
• a source, if you have one.

Reports that include a specific sentence get handled fastest, because there is no ambiguity about what is being questioned.