Editorial Policy — How GambleDragon Governs Reviews

This page sets out the rules that govern how GambleDragon produces reviews, makes editorial decisions, and handles corrections, complaints and commercial relationships. It is the document our editorial team operates against. If you want to know how individual ratings are calculated, that lives on the methodology page. If you want to know how we earn money, that lives on the affiliate disclosure page. This document covers the things that sit above both of those.

What this site is — and what it is not

GambleDragon is an independent review hub. Our assessments are built from publicly verifiable evidence, not from hands-on account testing. For each operator we draw on:

regulator licence registers (such as the UK Gambling Commission public register)
the operator’s own published terms and conditions
published RTP figures from game providers
public complaint data from third-party platforms (AskGamblers, Casino.Guru, Trustpilot)
publicly stated payment methods, limits, and game counts
a Lighthouse audit run against the operator’s public website

We want to be clear about the limits of this method. We do not deposit real money, run timed withdrawal tests, submit KYC documents, open throwaway accounts, or contact operator support to evaluate response times. Where a rating depends on a characteristic we cannot verify from a public source, we say so on the review rather than fill the gap with an assumption.

Independence

GambleDragon is editorially independent. Ranking position is a function of the methodology score, not of any commercial relationship. This is operationalised through three rules:

No paid rankings. Ranking position in best-of lists is a function of the methodology score only. Affiliate commission is not an input to the score or the sort order.
No paid removals. Once a review is published with a rating, that rating is not lowered or raised in response to a commercial conversation with an operator. It changes only when the underlying public evidence changes. Any such change is recorded in the page’s change-log.
No quiet edits. Changes to a published review that affect the score, a factual claim, or a product characteristic are dated and visible. Typo and style fixes are not logged; anything that would change a reader’s decision is.

Who edits reviews

Reviews on this site are produced and maintained by the GambleDragon Editorial Team. The same editorial standards apply to every page: the methodology is followed as published, sources are named, and any rating change is logged with a visible date.

We do not attribute reviews to invented individual personas. As the team and its processes evolve, this page will be updated to reflect how editorial responsibilities are divided.

Coverage decisions

We do not cover every operator that exists. We choose what to cover according to:

Reader demand. Search interest and direct queries naming an operator.
Market relevance. Operators that are visible in our target locales (UK, IE, CA, NZ, NL).
Licence visibility. Operators with a publicly verifiable licence are prioritised. Brands with no traceable licence are covered only as cautionary warnings.

We do not filter coverage based on whether an operator has an affiliate programme we can join. We publish coverage-only reviews for brands we have no commercial relationship with. The full meaning of “coverage” vs “featured partner” is on the methodology page under coverage vs partnership.

Conflict of interest

Our only commercial relationship is affiliate commission earned through tracked links. At present we work with one affiliate partner. That commission does not influence the methodology score or the order of any ranking.

Where any other conflict of interest exists on a given page, we declare it at the top of that page. If you suspect a conflict we have not declared, write to [email protected].

Corrections

If a published review contains a factual error, we want to know. Email [email protected] with:

the URL of the review
the specific claim you dispute
(if relevant) the source that contradicts it

We aim to respond within 48 hours. If the correction is valid, we publish it with a visible “Updated: [date]” line on the page and a brief change-log entry summarising what changed and why. We do not silently remove inaccurate claims — the change-log is part of the record.

Where a correction affects the rating, we re-check the relevant public sources and update the score and change-log together, rather than spot-editing a single figure in isolation.

Operator response rights

Operators may submit a response to any review on this site. We will:

read the response within 5 business days
correct any factual error it identifies, against the relevant public source
publish the operator’s response on the review page (where relevant and not defamatory) so readers can weigh both sides
not change the score in response to a request for a higher score that is not supported by the public evidence behind our methodology

Operators cannot demand removal of a review for any reason other than factual inaccuracy.

Per-locale compliance

GambleDragon publishes for five English-speaking markets (UK, IE, CA, NZ, NL — the last being English-language information only). Each market has its own regulator, banned-phrase expectations, helpline links, and bonus content rules. Our aim is for every page to comply with the rules for the locale it targets:

United Kingdom (UKGC). No “free” applied to bonuses with wagering. No “risk-free” applied to deposits that can be lost. No targeting of under-25s. BeGambleAware + GamCare helpline visible on every commercial page.
Ireland (Revenue Commissioners + voluntary self-regulation). Problem Gambling Ireland helpline visible. No promotion to under-18s.
Canada (provincial regulators, AGCO primary for Ontario). ConnexOntario helpline. Province-specific licence claims must be verifiable.
New Zealand (DIA). Gambling Helpline NZ visible. Offshore-licensed operators must be flagged as such, not portrayed as locally regulated.
Netherlands (KSA). No promotion of operators not on the KSA whitelist to NL audiences. Cruks self-exclusion link visible. Bonus content is hidden by default per KSA rules.

When two locales’ rules conflict on a single page, the stricter rule applies.

Underage protection

We do not target, advertise to, or design content for under-18 readers. Every commercial page carries an “18+” mark and a national helpline link. We use no animated characters, no youth-coded language, no cartoon imagery, and no game-of-skill framing of pure chance products. We do not run free-play demo games on this site.

If you are under 18 and have landed here, please leave the site. Resources for young people who have been affected by a family member’s gambling are at GamFam (UK) and Gam-Anon (international).

Content sources

Every review on this site is original prose written for GambleDragon. We do not republish operator marketing copy as our own assessment, and we do not buy syndicated affiliate content. Where we cite external sources — regulator pages, news outlets, complaint databases, provider RTP sheets — those sources are linked inline and named visibly on the page. AI tools may be used to assist drafting, but every fact in a published review must be checked against a named public source before publish.

How to escalate a complaint about us

If your concern is editorial (rating, factual accuracy, conflict of interest, missing dispute), email [email protected].

If your concern is commercial (affiliate-tracker behaviour, undisclosed sponsorship, advertising standards), email [email protected] and copy the relevant authority — the Advertising Standards Authority (UK), the Advertising Standards Authority of Ireland (IE), Ad Standards Canada (CA), or your national regulator. We will cooperate fully with any investigation.

If your concern is regulatory (a specific operator we cover appears to be operating without a valid licence, or in breach of our target locale’s gambling regulations), email [email protected] and please also contact the relevant regulator directly using the contact details on the methodology page.

Updates to this policy

This document is reviewed on any change to:

our commercial model
our editorial process
the regulatory landscape in any of our target locales

Every revision is dated. The previous version of this page is preserved in the site’s change-log.

This policy was last reviewed on the date shown above. Comments and queries: [email protected].