THE RULE
Every ranked product gets the same 100-point framework—and the evidence depth affects the score.
Rift's V1.1 controls were examined directly and its business facts were confirmed by EmberZens. Competitors are scored from current public product documentation. When a product has a large first-party customer community, dated launch discussions may inform setup and usability scoring only when the site labels them as user reports rather than verified defects.
The 100-point framework
Timing control
Range, precision, profile management, and whether current controls can be directly examined.
Transparency
Clear documentation, known defaults, disclosed limitations, and separation of facts from marketing.
Update value
Whether updates are included and whether the promise is specific enough for a buyer to understand.
Platform coverage
Breadth of supported platforms, without assuming exact device environments that are not documented.
Customer proof
Aggregate rating, review count, user count, and the quality of evidence behind those numbers.
What counts as evidence
- Directly examined current implementation details
- Owner-confirmed facts clearly labeled as owner-confirmed
- Current public product documentation with a stable source
- Aggregate rating, review, and customer figures with their source type disclosed
- Dated patterns in a seller's own customer community, labeled as user reports
- Repeatable setup controls, published defaults, and documented limitations
How public-evidence scoring works
A public product page can earn strong timing and transparency points when it publishes detailed controls, defaults, profiles, and setup instructions. Repeated launch reports can lower setup or timing confidence, but they are never converted into a universal defect claim. Keyword counts include questions and replies and are not failure rates.
What does not count
- Isolated accusations, unattributed screenshots, or claims the source does not support
- Feature claims copied from another ranking site without checking the underlying product source
- Unverified prices, patch speeds, or support-response promises
- Universal green-rate, ban-safety, or detection claims
- Hidden affiliate placement or fabricated customer reviews
Ownership and editorial control
InputRank is owned and published by EmberZens, which sells Rift. VRMON authors the current pages. EmberZens determines the site's content and benefits when a reader purchases Rift. InputRank is therefore a first-party publication, not an independent review outlet.
Corrections and updates
Pages should be updated when the reviewed build, product facts, evidence, or scoring changes. A product's score can move up or down. Unsupported details should be removed rather than silently converted into facts.