Updated
Editorial policy
Editorial decisions on this site are made without reference to commission rates, and no operator reviews content before it is published. This page states what that means in practice, what we refuse to publish, and how a factual error gets corrected.
Independence, stated precisely
This site earns affiliate commission. Pretending otherwise would be the first dishonest thing on it. What we can commit to is narrower and more useful than a claim of total independence:
No operator has ever seen a review, a score or a ranking before publication. No operator can buy a position, and no commission rate has ever changed one. Negative findings are published regardless of the commercial relationship — the cons list on each review is not decorative.
The part that is not independent: the set of operators we cover is the set we have affiliate arrangements with. That is a commercial choice and it shapes the whole comparison. Anyone reading a bonus comparison should assume this of every site in the sector, and hold it against the ones that do not admit it.
What we will not publish
Invented ratings. No aggregate star rating, no review count, no “4.7 from 318 players”. We collect no user ratings, so publishing one — or marking one up for search engines — would be a fabrication.
Unverifiable claims. No payout speeds we have not measured, no licence claims we cannot see on the operator's own site, no “trusted since 2015” where we have no record of it.
Urgency and inevitability. No countdown timers, no “offer ends tonight” on an evergreen promotion, and no language that presents winning as likely. Gambling has a negative expected return and the copy on this site is written on that assumption.
Anything aimed at people who should not see it. No targeting of under-18s, and no material that presents gambling as a way out of financial trouble.
Corrections
If a figure on this site is wrong, we want to know, and the fastest route is the Contact page.
How we handle it: a reported error is checked against the operator's current terms page. If the figure here is wrong, it is corrected and the page's verification date is updated in the same change. If the operator has changed its terms since we last checked, the listing is updated and the change is treated as a normal re-verification rather than a correction.
Where a correction changes the substance of a recommendation — a wagering requirement we understated, an exclusion we missed — we note it on the page rather than editing silently. Small typographic fixes are made without a note.
We do not remove accurate negative information at an operator's request. We do correct inaccurate negative information as readily as inaccurate positive information.
Advertising disclosure
Every outbound link to an operator is marked as sponsored in the page's markup, and the disclosure appears in the bar at the top of every page as well as in the footer. This meets the disclosure expectations of the EU Unfair Commercial Practices Directive and of the advertising codes in the markets this site publishes in.
Frequently asked
Has an operator ever been removed from the site?
The list is small and current, so the honest answer is that removals are rare. Where an operator's terms change in a way that makes an offer materially worse, the score and the write-up change with them, which is the usual outcome. An operator that failed to honour published terms would be removed.
Do you use AI to write reviews?
The figures are recorded by hand from source documents; that is the part where accuracy matters and it is not automated. Tooling is used to keep 144 pages in four languages consistent with each other and with the underlying data, which is a formatting problem rather than an editorial one.