Editorial Policy

Vivaspin pays this site a commission when a referred reader deposits. The commission is one-time or revenue-share depending on the market, is agreed in writing before the review is published, and never varies based on our rating or the words we use. We have refused four operators since launch for insisting on a minimum score — those refusals are logged in our internal register and summarised annually.

Nobody on the editorial team holds equity, shares, or paid advisory roles with any operator reviewed on this site. Reviewers do not see commercial terms before writing a page; they see the operator's product, pricing, and policies the way any UK player would.

Where a conflict of interest emerges mid-review — a reviewer previously worked at an operator being covered, a close family member is employed there — the editor reassigns the review to another writer and the conflict is noted in the page footer so readers can judge the final text themselves.

Every published review is fact-checked by a team member who did not write it. The checker verifies the licence number against the Gambling Commission public register, the operator entity name against Companies House filings, the software provider list against each provider's own operator directory, and the bonus terms against the live offer on the operator site.

Numeric claims — bonus amounts, wagering, withdrawal times — must come from a dated screenshot or an operator document in the review file. Unsourced numbers are removed.

Reviews are refreshed on a 90-day cycle at minimum. Every quarter the reviewer who owns a page re-tests the welcome offer, requests a fresh test withdrawal, and reads through the current terms for changes. Material changes — new wagering, new payment method, lost or added licence — trigger an immediate update outside the cycle.

The last-updated date in the page footer is the date of the most recent published change, not the date of a cosmetic edit or a typo fix. Minor edits to grammar or layout do not reset the date; they are logged internally for the fact-checker to review on the next cycle.

If a critical change — the operator loses its UKGC licence, for example — breaks between quarterly cycles, we update the page the same day the change is confirmed and send a one-line note to readers who subscribed to that review's update feed.

Three principles guide every page on this site. First, independence: operators pay us a referral commission, nothing more, and that commission does not buy a higher score or a softer review. Second, honesty: we publish what we found, including unflattering details, and we flag our commercial relationship on every reviewed page.

Third, accuracy: every claim traces to a source — a licence filing, an operator terms page, a screenshot of our own test — and anything we cannot verify is labelled as the operator's claim rather than reported as a fact.

These principles are not aspirational. They are enforced by splitting commercial and editorial roles, by a fact-check pass done by someone other than the writer, and by a correction policy that keeps every edit visible in the page footer. The editor has refused four operators since launch for insisting on a minimum score — those refusals are logged in our internal register and summarised annually in the editorial policy update.

If you believe a page on this site is inaccurate, write to the editorial address with the URL, the specific claim, and the evidence you have for a different number. We acknowledge every complaint within one working day and either publish a correction, publish the operator's response, or explain why we are keeping the page as it stands.

Corrections appear in the page footer with a dated note describing what moved and why. We do not quietly rewrite history.