Editorial Policy
Our editorial process prioritizes clear entity identification, primary-source verification for consequential claims, transparent uncertainty and page structures that answer distinct user needs without duplicating neighboring pages.
Strongest available evidence first
Primary sources
Regulator or government material, operator terms, official payment/product documentation and responsible-gambling authorities are preferred for consequential claims.
Secondary sources
Specialist publications, journalism and other secondary summaries may add context, but they do not automatically override clearer current primary documentation.
Unverified claims
Information that cannot be adequately verified should not be presented as established fact. Conflicting evidence should be qualified or omitted.
Changing facts receive more frequent review
Offers, rewards, payment rules, restrictions and other fast-changing commercial facts require closer review than evergreen publisher or navigational information. Dates should reflect substantive review or change, not cosmetic editing.
Corrections
When a material factual error is identified, the affected passage and any repeated site-wide fact should be corrected consistently rather than changed on only one page.
Commercial separation
Affiliate relationships are disclosed separately from factual analysis. Recommendation language is not presented as an operator statement.