Editorial contract · version 1.0.0
How we assess online casinos
A rating organises a review; it does not replace evidence. It is an editorial assessment, not a reader vote or an outcome prediction.
Comparison boundary
Current reviewed operators are comparison-only. English does not select a target country or establish eligibility, law, payment availability, or a recommendation. Missing fields remain unknown rather than receiving a guessed value.
Five weighted dimensions
- Terms and promotions transparency — 20% of the editorial rating. Claims require attributable, dated evidence.
- Game library — 20% of the editorial rating. Claims require attributable, dated evidence.
- Payments and withdrawals — 20% of the editorial rating. Claims require attributable, dated evidence.
- Customer support — 20% of the editorial rating. Claims require attributable, dated evidence.
- Mobile experience — 20% of the editorial rating. Claims require attributable, dated evidence.
For illustration only: hypothetical scores 8, 7.5, 9, 8 and 8.5 produce 8.2 out of 10. This is not a provider, operator, or published review rating.
Evidence levels
- Primary regulatory records for licence status and scope.
- Official operator or provider sources for terms and product statements.
- Identified independent sources for dated context.
- Published first-party tests with a named human owner, date, method, scope and result.
Automation can assist research and consistency checks but is not personal testing.
Updates and limits
Review dates identify a declared review date, not continuous monitoring. Conflicting or unavailable evidence is shown as such.
See the Editorial Policy and Corrections Policy.