Editorial Policy

CasinoFinder is funded by affiliate commissions, which we disclose on every page that contains an outbound casino link and in full in our affiliate disclosure. That funding model only works if readers can trust that what we publish is our honest assessment, so the following rules are absolute:

• Ratings, rankings, Editor's Choice designations and Casino Finder matches are produced by the published methodology. Nobody outside the editorial team can change a score.
• Commercial partners do not see reviews before publication, cannot request changes to scores, and are not consulted on wording.
• We review and list casinos we have no commercial relationship with, and we say so where relevant.
• A casino that ends or declines a commercial relationship keeps exactly the same rating it had before.

Every casino review, comparison and guide follows the same path from research to publication:

1. Research. An analyst collects structured data from primary sources: the operator's own website and terms, licence registers, payment-provider documentation and our own account testing. Each fact is recorded as data in our content model so it can be displayed consistently across the site.
2. Testing. For verified entries, the analyst opens an account, deposits, plays, contacts support and withdraws, recording timings and friction at each step.
3. Scoring. The nine category scores are set against the methodology checklist and justified in writing.
4. Writing. The analyst writes the verdict, section-by-section review and FAQ in plain language. Claims must be traceable to the research notes.
5. Editorial review. A second editor checks scores, facts and tone, challenges anything unsupported, and signs off. Both names appear in the byline.
6. Publication and monitoring. The page goes live with its publish and last-updated dates, and is entered into the re-review schedule described in the methodology.

Tone and language

We write neutrally and specifically. We do not use hype, superlatives we cannot support, or phrases such as “risk-free”, “guaranteed” or “free money”. Bonus terms — wagering, minimum deposit, caps, expiry — are shown next to every offer rather than in a footnote.

Structured facts (payment methods, coins, withdrawal speed, licence, minimum deposit, availability) are checked against the operator's current published information at every review and re-review. Where a fact cannot be confirmed, it is recorded as unknown and displayed as “not stated” rather than guessed.

Bonus verification

Bonus data is the most volatile information on the site, so it has its own process:

• Every listed bonus links to the operator's terms and stores a summary of the key conditions.
• Offers are re-checked at least monthly. Expired or withdrawn offers are marked expired and removed from headline placements rather than silently deleted.
• Each bonus carries its own verification state and last-verified date, independent of the casino's.
• We never invent promo codes. If no code is required, none is shown.

Entries that have not yet completed verification are labelled Demo data wherever a rating, bonus or key fact is displayed as a headline, so a placeholder can never be mistaken for a verified fact.

Verification states

Every casino and bonus is either Demo data or Verified. “Verified” is not a label an editor can simply switch on: the entry must record the verification date, the verifier (a published member of staff, never a placeholder profile) and the sources consulted, with a summary of what was tested, and the site treats an entry missing its date, verifier or sources as demo data. Only verified entries can carry Editor's Choice, have active outbound links, or be indexed by search engines; comparisons that include an unverified casino show figures side by side but name no winner and carry no verdict. The methodology lists the checklist an entry must pass.

Every review and guide carries a byline naming the analyst who wrote it and, where applicable, the editor who reviewed it. Each author has a public profile describing their role, areas of expertise and the content they are responsible for. Authors are accountable for the accuracy of what they publish and are the first point of contact for corrections on their pages.

We do not publish content under invented names, and we do not attribute content to people who did not work on it. While the site is being built, some bylines are placeholder profiles: they are labelled as such wherever they appear, are not presented to search engines as people, cannot verify an entry, and will be replaced by named staff with credentials and disclosures before launch.

• Editorial staff do not accept payment, gifts, free play or hospitality from operators, affiliates or software providers.
• Staff must declare any financial interest in an operator or its parent company and are recused from covering it.
• Commercial negotiations are handled separately from editorial work; analysts do not see commission rates when scoring.
• Test accounts are funded by CasinoFinder, and any winnings from testing are not retained by the analyst.

We want to be precise about which parts of the site are generated and which are written:

• Generated from data. Comparison tables, directory listings, “best casinos for…” collections, availability panels, Casino Finder results and structured-data markup are assembled automatically from the verified fields in our content model. When the underlying data changes, these pages change with it. Where a collection or comparison page includes an automatically generated introduction, it is derived only from those fields.
• Written and edited by people. Review verdicts, section prose, guides, FAQs and editorial picks are written and edited by named authors. Where writing tools, including AI assistants, are used to draft or edit text, the named author remains responsible for every claim and for checking it against the research record before publication.
• Never automated. Scores, Editor's Choice designations and verification sign-off are human decisions.

If we get something wrong we fix it quickly and visibly. When a factual error is confirmed we correct the page, update its last-updated date and, for material errors (a wrong score, a bonus term that would change a reader's decision, an availability mistake), add a note describing what changed. Minor typographical fixes are made without a note.

Anyone can request a correction — readers, operators and regulators alike. To help us act fast, include:

• the page URL and the specific statement you believe is wrong;
• what you believe the correct information is; and
• a source we can verify, such as a link to the operator's current terms.

We aim to acknowledge correction requests within two working days and to resolve verified errors within five. Requests from operators are handled through the same process as any other and do not receive different treatment.

Corrections, questions about this policy and feedback on the methodology can be sent to Not yet provided — contact email address or through the contact page. Please put “Correction” in the subject line for factual issues so they are routed to the responsible author.