Editorial Standards & Ranking Methodology

1. The Editorial Team & Author Accountability

3 Patti Rank PK is published by a small editorial team based in Pakistan, working under a single shared brand. We do not publish ghost-written content, we do not buy review templates from third parties, and we do not accept ranking-position guarantees from any operator we cover. Articles, app reviews, and the ranking page are attributed to the team rather than to a single named author for two practical reasons: re-tests are split across the team, and one editor's individual sample should not over-weight the published call.

Inside the team, three roles do most of the visible work:

Reader-facing email is monitored by the Lead Editor at [email protected]. Senior editorial decisions — methodology updates, ranking-position changes, retraction calls — are signed off in writing on the ranking changelog before they take effect on the public site.

2. The Six-Step Ranking Methodology (Detailed)

Every app that appears on our ranking page is taken through the same six steps. We do not skip steps for apps we like, and we do not invent steps for apps we do not. Each step has a defined output that is filed in the methodology evidence archive — the archive is not public, but its existence is what lets us defend a ranking call to a reader, an operator, or a regulator.

Every published app review records the methodology version it followed and the date of the most recent re-test. Apps that go more than 90 days without a re-test are flagged as "review pending" on the public page until a fresh sample is run.

3. Sourcing Rules & Evidence Standards

The numbers and claims that end up on a 3pattirank.pk page have to come from somewhere we can defend. Our sourcing rules are short:

• First-party evidence first. A withdrawal time on an app page is a withdrawal we actually ran. A bonus play-through ratio is a ratio we read inside the app on the date stamped at the top of the page.
• Operator material is acceptable for facts about the operator. An app's stated minimum withdrawal, its stated daily cap, or its stated supported payment networks may be sourced from the operator's own help pages — provided we have re-verified inside the app and provided we link to the operator's source.
• Third-party material is acceptable for facts the operator does not own. The Easypaisa fee schedule, the JazzCash service window, or the SBP consumer-protection helpdesk number are sourced from those parties' own published material and linked accordingly.
• Reader anecdotes are acceptable as triggers for re-test, not as sources. A reader email that says "JazzCash withdrawal took 36 hours on Friday night" is a reason for the App Review Editor to schedule an out-of-cycle re-test. It is not a fact we publish on the app page.
• "Frequently downloaded" is the strongest qualitative claim we will make about popularity. If we cannot independently verify a download number, we do not display it. Quantitative download claims that we cannot trace to a verifiable source are not published.

4. Conflict of Interest & Independence

3 Patti Rank PK is editorially independent. The team does not hold equity in any operator we cover, does not accept gift cards or hardware from operators, and does not accept ranking-position payments. We do accept affiliate referral fees from operators when readers install through our links — that relationship is disclosed in Section 6 — but the affiliate fee does not change ranking position.

Two practical conflict-of-interest rules govern day-to-day work:

• An editor who has a personal real-cash account on an operator's platform does not write the review for that operator. Personal play data should not contaminate the methodology sample.
• An editor whose family member works for an operator does not handle that operator's reviews, corrections, or ranking decisions. Family relationships are declared internally on join and at any subsequent change.

We declare these rules publicly, on this page, because writing them down is what makes them load-bearing.

5. Update Cadence

Pakistani 3 Patti apps change frequently — new APK versions, new payment limits, new bonus rules, new identity-verification steps. A stale review can be worse than no review at all, so we commit to a published cadence:

• Ranking page — reviewed at least monthly. The review date is shown at the top of the page. Material ranking changes are recorded on the ranking changelog.
• Individual app pages — reviewed at least quarterly, or sooner if a reader reports a withdrawal or installation issue.
• Withdrawal-flow guides — reviewed when Easypaisa or JazzCash changes its published limits, and at minimum once per quarter.
• Strategy guides — reviewed when a referenced game's rules change, and at minimum once per year.
• Editorial standards (this page) — reviewed when methodology changes, and at minimum once per year.

If you spot a 3pattirank.pk page that is past its review window, please email the editorial team and we will move it to the top of the queue.

6. Affiliate Disclosure (Editorial Detail)

Three additional editorial rules sit alongside the disclosure:

• Ranking position is determined by methodology, not by referral economics. If two apps tie on methodology, the one with the better Easypaisa or JazzCash withdrawal record wins the higher position. Referral fee level is not a tiebreaker.
• Affiliate links are visually marked. Download buttons on the ranking page and on individual app pages are clearly labelled and a one-line disclosure sits inside the page footer.
• The same disclosure language appears in three places — the about page, this editorial standards page, and the terms of use. A reader who lands on any of those three pages will see the same affiliate language.

If a future regulatory change requires more granular affiliate disclosure (for example, the per-link fee tier), we will publish that change on this page first, on the ranking changelog second, and in the per-link micro-copy third.

7. What We Will Not Publish

Some content is off-limits regardless of traffic, regardless of affiliate offer, regardless of who is asking. The list below is short on purpose; every line on it has been tested against a real proposed article at some point in the last twelve months.

• "Guaranteed win" content. No "100-streak strategies", no "Mines beating systems", no "Dragon Tiger predictor" promotions. Strategy guides describe patterns, probabilities, and bankroll management — not promises.
• Fabricated review counts, ratings, or download numbers. If we cannot verify a number, we do not display it.
• Sponsored "review" content disguised as editorial. Where an operator partners with us on a non-editorial placement (for example, a banner ad on a future bonus page), the placement is visually distinct from editorial content and labelled accordingly.
• Reader anecdotes presented as testimonials we have not verified. Anecdotes are useful as re-test triggers; they are not testimonials.
• Revenue figures attributed to individual Pakistani players. Real-cash play is private. Stories that frame an individual's wins or losses as proof of an app's quality are not editorial; they are marketing.
• Content directed at users we have reason to believe are under 18. Hooks, prompts, or imagery that target minors do not appear on the site.

8. Corrections Policy & Reader Reports

We make mistakes. When we do, we want to fix them quickly and visibly. The correction policy:

• Confirmed factual errors are fixed in place. The corrected paragraph is marked, and a dated correction note is added at the bottom of the article. The original error language is not silently overwritten.
• Disputed claims are reviewed against methodology evidence. The resolution is documented on the relevant app page or, where the dispute affects ranking, on the ranking changelog.
• Methodology changes are recorded with a short rationale. Both the change and its reason appear on the ranking changelog so a reader can see the editorial reasoning, not just the outcome.
• Material retractions are flagged at the top of the affected page. A retraction is a stronger statement than a correction; we use the word only when a published fact turns out to be wholly incorrect, not merely outdated.

Reader reports go to [email protected]. Acknowledgements within one to two business days; resolution times depend on whether a re-test is required.

9. Ranking Changelog (Last 90 Days)

Material ranking-position changes, methodology updates, and significant corrections are recorded here in date order. The full archive is maintained in the methodology evidence repository.

Future entries — every new entry will include the date, the change, the affected pages, and a short rationale.

10. Document Information & Last Reviewed

This page is reviewed at least once per year and any time the six-step methodology changes. The current methodology version is referenced on every published app page.

Methodology version: 1.0  |  Page version: 1.0  |  Effective Date: May 11, 2026  |  Last Reviewed: May 10, 2026  |  Next scheduled review: November 2026