How We Vet Our Psychic Readers

We get asked, reasonably often, why we only list six readers when other sites in this space list sixty or six hundred. The honest answer is that vetting doesn’t scale the way a directory does. We could not run the process described in this article on six hundred people and still mean it. So we chose depth over breadth, and this is exactly what that depth looks like in practice.

Why We Keep the Circle Small on Purpose

A large directory site earns money on volume — more listed readers means more traffic, more search-term coverage, more chances a visitor finds someone. That model creates a structural incentive to add readers faster than you can properly evaluate them. We built this site around a different incentive: we’d rather be able to personally vouch for six people than nominally list six hundred we’ve never properly reviewed.

Every reader you see on our readers page went through the full four-step process below, and every one of them is someone on our editorial team would recommend to a friend or family member without hesitation. That’s the actual bar, not a marketing line.

Step 1: Application and Background Review

Every candidate starts with a written application covering their background, how long they’ve practiced, what kind of reading they specialize in, and why they read the way they do. We look for specificity here immediately — a candidate who describes their approach in the same generic language a directory bio would use doesn’t advance, regardless of how many years of claimed experience they list.

We also check for any public complaint history, prior platform bans, or a pattern of consumer reports tied to their previous work, where that information is findable. This step alone eliminates a meaningful share of applicants before a single test reading ever happens.

Step 2: A Blind Test Reading, Scored Before We Know Who Wrote It

Candidates who pass the application stage complete a test reading against a real (anonymized) sample question, submitted the same way a visitor’s question would arrive. Our editorial reviewers score that reading — for specificity, for whether it avoids the cold-reading patterns we cover in our cold-reading guide, and for whether it reads as personally engaged with the actual question rather than templated — before anyone reviewing it knows whose submission it is.

Blind scoring matters because it removes the halo effect of an impressive résumé. A candidate with twenty years of claimed experience gets judged on the same page of actual writing as a candidate with three, and the writing has to hold up on its own.

Step 3: The Ethics Agreement — What a Reader May and May Not Say

Readers who pass the blind test sign an explicit ethics agreement before they’re allowed to read for a single visitor. It prohibits, specifically: any suggestion of a curse, negative attachment, or removable “dark energy” tied to a sales offer; any pressure toward a paid session framed as urgent or necessary rather than optional; any claim to predict specific dates, medical outcomes, or legal outcomes with certainty; and any use of countdown timers, artificial urgency, or fear-based language of any kind.

This agreement isn’t a formality we file away. It’s the specific list of behaviors we check for in the next step, on an ongoing basis, for as long as a reader works with us.

Step 4: Ongoing Spot-Checks of Live Readings

Vetting isn’t a one-time event. We periodically review live reading samples — with visitor questions anonymized — against the same ethics standard from Step 3, on a rolling basis for every active reader, not just the ones who’ve had a complaint. This is how we catch drift: a reader who passed their test reading honestly two years ago but has slowly picked up habits that don’t match our standard anymore.

We also track visitor feedback directly. If you report a reading that felt pressured, vague in the specific ways we describe elsewhere on this site, or in violation of the ethics agreement, that report goes into the same review process — email us at [email protected] and we act on every one.

What the Application Stage Actually Filters Out

To be concrete about Step 1 rather than describing it abstractly: in a typical review cycle, a meaningful share of applicants are filtered before any test reading happens, almost always for the same handful of reasons. Some describe their specialty in language lifted nearly word-for-word from other directory listings, which suggests they’re building a profile to be listed everywhere rather than describing an actual practice. Some can’t answer a basic follow-up question about their own stated methodology with any specificity — asked how they typically approach a career question, for instance, and unable to say anything beyond “I connect with your energy.” And some have a findable history of platform removals or unresolved consumer complaints elsewhere, which on its own doesn’t disqualify someone automatically, but requires an honest explanation before we move forward.

We mention this because it’s easy to assume “vetting process” means a light background check and a rubber stamp. In practice, the application stage alone does real work, and it’s designed to be a genuine filter rather than a formality on the way to a predetermined “yes.”

Why the Blind Scoring Step Uses More Than One Reviewer

A single reviewer, however careful, brings their own taste to a subjective evaluation — one editor might personally prefer a warmer tone and unconsciously score for that, while another prefers precision and might undervalue genuine warmth. To manage this, test readings are scored independently by more than one member of our editorial team before scores are compared, specifically to catch cases where one reviewer’s personal preference would have swayed the outcome on its own. A candidate has to hold up across more than one set of eyes, not just one favorable read.

What Disqualifies a Reader Immediately

• Any curse, negative-energy, or “blockage” claim tied to a paid removal offer
• Pressuring a visitor toward a paid session using urgency, guilt, or fear
• Requesting payment information for what’s advertised as a free reading
• A pattern of vague, interchangeable readings that don’t engage with the actual question asked
• Any verified visitor report of manipulative or dishonest conduct

Any one of these, confirmed, ends a reader’s relationship with this platform. We don’t operate on a warnings system for the items on this list — they’re the whole reason the vetting process exists.

Meet the Six Who Passed

The six readers currently on this platform each specialize in a different kind of question rather than offering an interchangeable general service: Desmond Cole for career and life-path decisions, Ines Marlowe for love and relationships, Callum Ashby for tarot and spiritual guidance, Natalie Winters for astrology and general readings, Martin Voss for numerology, and Sally Hartwell for energy and empathic readings. You can read each of their full profiles, specialties, and reader ratings on the Our Readers page.

If you’d like to see the process pay off directly rather than read about it, request a free reading and judge the result against the ethics standard above yourself. That comparison is the whole point of publishing it.

Why We Publish This Process at All

Most platforms treat their vetting process, if one exists, as an internal document — something they can point to vaguely (“all our readers are verified!”) without ever showing their work. We think that vagueness is exactly the problem visitors run into across this industry: everyone claims vetting, almost nobody explains what it actually consists of. Publishing the four steps above, in enough detail that you could hold us to them, is meant to close that gap. If we ever fail to actually follow this process on a given reader, that failure is now something you can name specifically and ask us about — which is a much stronger form of accountability than a generic trust badge on a homepage.

This is also why we resist the pressure to grow the roster quickly, even when we get frequent applications from readers with large followings elsewhere who’d likely bring us traffic. A bigger name doesn’t skip Step 1, Step 2, or the ethics agreement, and it never will — the roster grows exactly as fast as the vetting process allows, and no faster, regardless of how much traffic a bigger name might bring in the short term. It’s a slower way to build a roster, and we think it’s the only honest one.