What We Check and Against Which Source
These are the primary sources we accept, and the only ones. If a fact cannot be traced to the relevant row below, it does not get published.
| Fact type | Accepted primary source | How recorded | Re-check frequency |
|---|---|---|---|
| Licence status and number | Gambling Commission public register, or the offshore regulator’s own validator | Licence number, status and the domains listed against it, with the check date | Monthly |
| Bonus terms: amount, wagering, min odds, expiry | The operator’s own terms page for that offer | Each clause recorded separately against the offer, with the date checked | Monthly |
| Minimum deposit and withdrawal limits | The operator’s banking page, confirmed at the cashier on a live UK account | The figure with the method it applies to | Monthly |
| Withdrawal time | The operator’s published processing window per method, plus confirmation that a withdrawal completed on our own account | Recorded as an operator-stated window and labelled as the operator’s figure | Monthly |
| Payment methods and fees | The operator’s cashier as a logged-in UK customer | Method, availability, fee, and whether it voids the welcome offer | Monthly |
| GamStop participation | The operator’s licence record and its own published terms | Yes or no, with the source of the statement | Monthly |
| Reputation and regulatory record | The regulator’s published enforcement record and the operator’s own terms | Regulatory findings only, recorded with the date | Quarterly |
Some sources look authoritative and are not accepted here:
- Other affiliate or comparison sites, however well known, because a repeated figure is not a verified one;
- Press releases and affiliate newsletters that announce an offer without linking its terms;
- Marketing emails, banner copy and in-app promotional screens;
- Forum posts, social media and user comments, which can point us at something worth checking but never evidence it;
- Screenshots with no source URL and no date;
- Any output from an AI tool, which is never a source for a fact on this site.
Reputation deserves a note, because our standard is narrower than most review sites use. We do not build scores or drawbacks on complaint-aggregator ratings or forum threads, because the individual accounts behind them cannot be verified. We use the regulatory record, the operator’s history and whether its terms match its marketing.
The Fact-Checking Workflow
Every article goes through the same sequence, and no article skips a step because of deadline pressure.
- The author records each fact in the article’s evidence file as it is gathered, with the source URL, the exact wording found and the date it was checked.
- A fact-checker who is not the author re-opens every source in that file and either confirms the figure or flags it. This is the rule that does the work: the person who wrote the number is never the person who signs it off.
- Flagged facts go back to the author with the discrepancy. A fact that cannot be resolved against a primary source is removed from the article rather than softened, hedged or published with a qualifier.
- The responsible editor approves the article, and the fact-check date is published on the page alongside the byline and the last-reviewed date.
- Between full reviews, bonus figures and licence records on listing and comparison pages are re-verified monthly against the operator’s terms, because those move faster than anything else we publish.
The evidence file is kept internally with its check dates, so a disputed figure can be traced back to what the source said on the day it was read.
How We Handle Facts We Cannot Verify
The default is not to publish. Where no primary source exists for a figure, it is left out, and a table cell is left empty rather than filled with an estimate. Where the fact matters enough that omitting it would leave the reader worse off, we publish it with the label operator claim, unverified and name the operator as the source, so the reader knows whose number they are reading.
Two examples show where the line falls. An operator’s stated payout window, such as same-day payments to a debit card, is published as its own commitment with that label attached: we can confirm the commitment exists, not that it holds for every account. A claim such as “the fastest payouts in the UK” is not published at all, because no source could verify it.
Facts About Offshore and Non-GamStop Operators
The standard is deliberately stricter for operators outside the UK system, because that is where a reader has least protection and where a loose fact does most damage.
- The licence is validated through the regulator’s own tool rather than through the operator’s footer, and if the tool returns nothing the operator is not listed;
- The licensee company name is published alongside the licence number, because offshore brands frequently trade under a company that differs from the brand name;
- The claim that an operator accepts UK players is treated as an operator claim and labelled as one, not restated as a legal position;
- The absence of GamStop participation and of a UK dispute route is stated explicitly on every page where such an operator appears.
On legal status we are careful for a reason. Where the position for a UK player is not settled, we describe what is known and say so, rather than closing the gap with a confident sentence. Nothing here is legal advice, and no page states that betting at an offshore operator is legal for UK players as though it were a plain fact.
Reporting a Factual Error
If a figure here does not match the source, tell us. Write to [email protected] or use Contact Us with the page URL, the figure you are questioning and where the correct version can be found. We acknowledge every report within two working days, and what happens next is set out in our Corrections & Updates Policy.