Review calibration, not accusation
Each chart compares a site or reviewer with the wider market for comparable public review rows. Positive values mean the profile scores higher than market average. Negative values mean it scores lower. The result is a score tendency, not a judgement.
Bias vs market is the chart metric: average((review score - market score) x 10). Scores are shown as points on a 0-100 scale so a 0.6 difference on a 10-point review scale appears as 6 points.
The dataset stores public metadata only: outlet, reviewer, game, platform, genre, publisher, IP type, date, score, market comparator, and source links. It does not store full copyrighted review text.
Sites and reviewer profiles need at least 25 usable reviews before they are listed. Filtered platform and genre views also require enough matching rows so small samples do not dominate the chart.
Platform filters use platform-only titles and platform-holder publisher or studio evidence. Multiplatform is used when a title is known across 2+ platform families unless ownership gives a clearer signal. Genre filters use broad metadata families, including AAA and Indie segments.
Use the tool to understand fit, source context, and expected scoring patterns. Do not use it to harass reviewers, blacklist outlets, claim proof of bad faith, or reduce a review to one number without reading the original work.
Market averages are not objective truth. Score scales and editorial cultures differ. Automated platform, genre, publisher, and IP labels can be wrong. Older rows may have weaker metadata than recent rows.
If a profile, source link, reviewer name, outlet name, score, platform, genre, or ownership classification looks wrong, send the correction with the outlet, game title, source URL, and proposed fix through the contact page.