Most Roblox value sites work the same way: a number appears, and you're meant to believe it. No source, no date, no way to tell whether the figure was carefully tracked last week or invented last year to fill a page. I want to explain why we don't do that, because it's the single decision this whole site is built on, and it costs us more than it looks like it should.
A number with nothing behind it is a guess
Here's the uncomfortable truth about value lists, including the good ones: nobody knows the "real" price of a tradeable item, because there isn't a single real price. There's a rolling community consensus, and it moves. So a value with no source and no date is, functionally, indistinguishable from a number someone made up. It might be excellent. It might be fiction. You have no way to tell, which means you're not reading data, you're trusting a stranger's confidence.
Every value list and codes page here carries a source line and a last-updated date, and the underlying data is public as plain JSON anyone can open. That's not for show. It's so you can do the one thing an unsourced number never lets you do: check whether it's any good.
The date is half the information
A value without a date can't be evaluated at all. Values drift with updates, events, and the meta, so "Leopard is 3,500" means nothing until you know when. A list that hides its date is hiding the one fact that tells you whether to trust the rest of it. We stamp every data file with its revision date and let stale pages look stale, because a page that pretends to be current when it isn't is worse than one that admits its age.
The codes page cost us, and that's the point
The clearest example shipped this week. We publish that Pet Simulator 99 has no public codes, because it doesn't — BIG Games has never released them. Every other codes site lists a stack of "working PS99 codes" anyway, because a page full of fake codes pulls clicks and an honest empty page doesn't. We gave up the clicks. The Adopt Me codes page says the same thing: nothing active right now, and here's why, instead of recycling expired codes as if they work. That decision loses us traffic and gains us the only thing a reference site actually trades on.
No black boxes, either
The same rule runs through the tools. Every calculator has a writeup underneath it explaining the formula, with the assumptions visible. We won't ship a number generator that won't show its work, because "trust me, the math is right" is the same move as "trust me, the value is right," and it fails for the same reason.
Why bother when nobody's checking
Nobody enforces any of this. There's no value-list regulator, no penalty for making numbers up. We do it because the entire worth of a reference is whether you can believe it, and belief is the one thing you can't manufacture. Every sourced value, every honest empty page, every visible formula is us earning the right to be believed on the next number. Spend that trust once on a fabricated code or a confident guess, and you've taught the reader to discount everything else on the site.
So hold us to it. The data is right there, dated and sourced. If a value looks wrong, check it against the source and tell us. A site that asks you to verify its work is the only kind worth not having to.