Editorial Guidelines
Everything that governs how we work — what we test, what we publish, how we handle conflicts of interest, and what happens when we get something wrong.
Casino content affects real financial decisions. Google’s own quality guidelines class it as “Your Money or Your Life” material — the standard where inaccurate information does actual harm. This page sets out everything we do to get it right. It’s the rulebook. Every other page on this site follows it.
The five things we won’t compromise on
Call them principles if you want. In practice, they’re just the way we’ve run this for 15 years.
| What we stand for | What that looks like day to day |
|---|---|
| Independence | A casino’s rating comes from testing — full stop. What they pay us has nothing to do with it. |
| Honesty | We publish the bad stuff. We’ve given 2-star scores to casinos while earning good money from their affiliate programme. |
| Accuracy | Every factual claim gets checked before it’s published. If we can’t verify it, we either say so clearly or we cut it. |
| Transparency | We tell readers how we make money, everywhere on this site. No hiding it in a footer nobody reads. |
| Players first | When a commercial interest and a player’s interest pull in different directions, the player wins. |
Experience, expertise, authority, trust — how we show our work
Google’s Search Quality team uses four criteria to judge whether content on financial topics is trustworthy. Experience, expertise, authoritativeness, and trust — E-E-A-T. Because gambling content directly affects people’s money, we’re held to the highest tier. Here’s where we stand on each one.
| Criteria | Our position |
|---|---|
| Experience | We’ve reviewed 100–200+ operators since 2013 using real accounts and real deposits. Not theory. Actual testing. |
| Expertise | Daniel has worked in gambling content since 2013. Ryan comes from payment processing. Emma spent years in casino software. These aren’t generalist writers picking up a new topic. |
| Authoritativeness | Fifteen years of consistent, named-author publishing on a single site. Licences verified directly with regulators, not copied from casino homepages. |
| Trust | Affiliate relationships disclosed on every page. Conflicts of interest named, not buried. Negative reviews published even when they hurt our earnings. |
How editorial stays separate from commercial
Daniel, Ryan, and Emma don’t know what any casino pays us when they’re writing reviews. They don’t have access to that data. That’s by design, not accident.
The people who handle commercial partnerships — affiliate deals, commission negotiations — are completely separate. They don’t edit reviews. They don’t have a say in ratings. If a casino pushes back on a negative review and tries to use its affiliate relationship as leverage, the answer is no, and the relationship ends. That’s happened. We’ve walked away from decent-paying partners because of it.
If a review contains a factual error — a wrong withdrawal time, an outdated bonus figure, an incorrect licence number — an operator can flag it with documentation. We’ll check it, and if they’re right, we’ll fix it and say so. That’s a legitimate correction request.
Remove negative findings. Improve a rating in exchange for better commission. See a review before we publish it. Any of those requests end the affiliate relationship, and we note the attempt in the review itself.
What “YMYL standards” means in practice
It means we treat every piece of bonus information as something that could genuinely cost a reader money if we get it wrong. A few concrete examples of how that plays out:
- If a casino’s homepage says one thing and their terms and conditions say something different, we go with the T&C. That’s the legally binding document. We flag the gap to readers and call it misleading advertising.
- We screenshot bonus terms at the time we claim the bonus. Operators change terms without announcement — those screenshots are our record of what was actually offered.
- We don’t use marketing language. We don’t describe a bonus as “generous” or “outstanding” without specific numbers to back it up.
- Every review gets updated every 90 days, minimum. If something major changes — a licence suspended, withdrawals suddenly taking weeks — we update immediately.
Which casinos we’ll review and which we won’t
To be considered, an operator needs
- A current, verifiable licence from a recognised regulator
- Working SSL encryption — confirmed, not just assumed
- Deposit limits and self-exclusion functionality for players
- No active regulatory sanctions or unresolved enforcement actions
- A real player account we can open, fund, play on, and withdraw from
We won’t review
- Unlicensed operators — doesn’t matter what they’d pay us
- Anyone currently under regulatory investigation
- Sites with a documented pattern of not paying players out
- Operators serving markets where online gambling is illegal
How we verify licences
We go directly to the regulator’s database — not to the casino’s website. Casinos sometimes display wrong, expired, or entirely fabricated licence information. Emma checks each one at source and keeps a timestamped record.
| Regulator | Where we check |
|---|---|
| UKGC | register.gamblingcommission.gov.uk |
| Malta Gaming Authority | mga.org.mt |
| Curaçao GCB | curacaolicensing.com — post-2023 licences only |
| Ontario iGaming | igamingontario.ca |
| New Zealand DIA | dia.govt.nz |
| GRAI Ireland | gamblingregulation.ie |
What we actually do during a review
Signing up and KYC
Real name, real address, real documents. We go through identity verification the same way any player does — uploading a passport or driving licence, proof of address, the works. We track how long it takes from submission to approval.
Deposits
We test at least two different payment methods per casino. We check that the methods listed on the site actually work — plenty of casinos advertise options they’ve quietly discontinued. We note fees and compare actual processing times against what the site claims.
Bonuses
We claim the welcome bonus as a normal player would. We read the full terms — all of them, including the footnotes — and screenshot everything. Then we track the wagering progress manually to see whether the contribution rates in the T&C match what the casino actually applies. They don’t always match.
Withdrawals
Ryan requests a real withdrawal on every casino we test. We measure the actual time from request to money in account. Casinos that claim 24-hour withdrawals frequently take two or three days in practice. We publish the real number, not the advertised one.
Customer support
We contact support through every channel they list and ask genuine questions — the kind a player would actually need answered. We time the responses. We check whether the answers are accurate. Quick replies with wrong information score badly. A slightly slower response that actually helps scores better.
We publish the terms and conditions version. It’s the legal document. Then we flag the discrepancy in the review and mark it as misleading advertising. We also contact the casino and note in the review whether they responded.
When a casino we’ve rated starts going wrong
| What happened | What we do |
|---|---|
| Licence suspended or pulled | Remove from recommended lists immediately. Add a clear warning to the review. Remove the affiliate link. |
| Multiple reports of non-payment | Drop the rating immediately. Add warnings. Pause the affiliate relationship. Contact the casino for a response and publish whether they gave one. |
| Terms changed without telling players | Update the review to reflect what the terms actually say now. Adjust the rating if the change hurts players. |
| Regulator opens an investigation | Add a warning to the review right away. Suspend the affiliate link until we know more. |
| A handful of complaints come in | Log them. Watch for a pattern over the next cycle. One bad experience doesn’t change a rating — consistent patterns across multiple players do. |
How we write
British English is the default. No promotional language — we don’t call bonuses “amazing” unless we can explain specifically why. Everything published has a named author. Every review includes a section on responsible gambling with links to relevant support services for the player’s market. All content is original — we don’t rewrite competitor reviews or repurpose material from casino marketing teams.
When we get something wrong
We correct it, note the correction at the top of the article, and explain what changed. Email us at info@bonusesonline.com with the page, the claim you think is wrong, and whatever evidence you have. We’ll check it within 2 business days and respond within 5.
Operators can submit corrections the same way. But “I don’t like my rating” isn’t a correction request — that requires specific facts and documentation to back them up.