This page describes how content on Tennis Arcade Games is researched, written, reviewed, published, corrected and kept current. It is written to be specific enough to hold us to, rather than a set of reassuring generalities.
Last reviewed: 15 September 2026.
Scope and who writes here
All content on this site is written by Alex Carter, the site's editor, who has spent eight years covering sports and browser gaming. There are no other contributors, no guest posts and no syndicated material.
Alex writes about tennis video games. Alex is not a tennis coach, holds no coaching qualification, and has no affiliation with any tennis organisation. Where an article touches on the real sport it is for context only, and it is never intended as coaching advice. Any article that risks being read that way says so explicitly.
Two kinds of claim, treated differently
Nearly everything published here is one of two things, and we handle them differently on purpose.
Claims about our own games. Window widths, escalation rates, scoring formulas, opponent reaction delays. These are verified directly against the source code of the game in question before publication. When we say the rally challenge narrows its window by 1.5% per return, that number was read out of the file, not estimated.
Claims about the genre in general. Design patterns, conventions, what players tend to do. These are informed observations rather than measurements, and the writing is phrased to make that clear — "most games in the genre" rather than "all games", "in our experience" rather than a bare assertion. We do not dress an observation up as a statistic.
A third, smaller category is historical and factual claims about the wider world — release dates, hardware, industry events. These go through the verification process described in our fact-checking policy.
The publishing process
Every article goes through the same six stages. A piece that fails at any stage goes back rather than forward.
- Brief. Before anything is written, an article gets a documented brief: the angle, a section outline, the specific search intent it serves, and which existing pages it should link to. Briefs are stored in the site's data files and the outstanding ones are published openly on the article index.
- Research. Source code is read for claims about our games. External sources are gathered and assessed for anything factual. Where we cannot verify something, it is cut rather than hedged into vagueness.
- Draft. Written to the brief. The test applied at this stage is whether the article tells a reader something they could act on or did not already know. An article that restates its own title at length does not pass.
- Fact check. Every number, date and factual claim is re-verified against its source, separately from the drafting. This is deliberately a distinct pass, because checking while writing reliably misses things.
- Review. Read again for accuracy, clarity, overclaiming, and whether the internal links are genuinely useful or merely present. Anything that promises a benefit we cannot support is removed here.
- Publish and schedule review. The article goes live with a real publication date and enters the review schedule below.
Standards every article has to meet
- Original. Written from scratch. Nothing scraped, spun, translated or rewritten from another site.
- Independently useful. Each article answers one clear question. We do not publish near-duplicates aimed at keyword variations of the same intent.
- Specific. Where a number exists, the article gives the number. Advice that cannot be acted on is cut.
- Honest about uncertainty. Where evidence is thin or contested, the article says so, even at the cost of sounding less authoritative.
- Free of keyword stuffing. Each page targets one primary intent and is written for a reader. If a phrase reads awkwardly, it goes.
- Properly attributed. External claims are linked to their source. We do not cite sources we have not read.
Our position on AI-generated content
We think readers are entitled to a direct answer on this rather than a carefully worded non-answer.
No article on this site is published as generated output. Where automated tools are used at all, it is for mechanical work — outlining, checking internal link coverage, spotting repetition across articles — and the text you read is written and edited by a person who is accountable for it.
The reason is not ideological. It is that the value of this site rests almost entirely on claims that require reading source code and having built the thing being described, and a language model has no access to either. An article about our rally challenge's escalation rate that was not checked against the file would be worthless regardless of how well it read.
Keeping content current
Every article carries two visible dates: when it was first published and when it was last reviewed. Both are accurate. We do not refresh a date to make a page look current — if the last-updated date has not moved, nothing has changed.
Articles are reviewed on this schedule:
- Immediately when a game it describes changes. Changing a timing window without updating the article that quotes it would make the article wrong.
- Immediately when an error is reported and confirmed.
- Every twelve months as a scheduled review, whether or not anything has obviously changed.
- Ad hoc when something in the wider subject moves — a browser capability changes, a platform shifts, a claim we relied on is revised.
A review that finds nothing to change still updates the review date, and we consider that a meaningful signal: it says a person looked at this page recently and stood behind it.
Corrections
Corrections are handled under the fact-checking policy, which sets out the full procedure. The summary:
- Typographical and grammatical fixes are made silently.
- Any change to a fact, number or recommendation carries a dated correction note on the article itself.
- An article found to be substantially wrong is rewritten or withdrawn, not quietly patched.
- We do not delete an article to make a mistake disappear.
Report anything you think is wrong through the contact page.
Independence and funding
No payment of any kind influences what is published here. We do not accept sponsored posts, paid reviews, affiliate arrangements or link placements, and emails offering them are deleted unread.
The site's intended funding model is advertising. No advertising is currently running. If it starts, it will be visually distinct from content, clearly labelled, and it will never be presented as editorial. Advertisers will have no input into what is published, and no advertiser will be told in advance what is coming.
Every game covered on this site was made by us, which is an obvious conflict of interest and one we would rather name than manage quietly. Where an article discusses our own games, it says so. Where an article makes a comparative judgement, it avoids ranking our games against anyone else's, because we are not a credible judge of that.
Standards for game pages
Game pages follow the same rules with two additions.
First, a game page must state honestly whether the game is playable. Six of the ten games in our catalogue are not built. Their pages say so at the top, explain the intended design, and link to games that do work. We will not publish a page implying a game exists when it does not.
Second, the described mechanics must match the shipped code. If we change a game's tuning, the page is updated in the same change. A page describing behaviour the game no longer has is an error, not a stale detail.