This site publishes editorial coverage of UK and US online bingo. Operator reviews, regulatory news, bonus analysis, network rundowns. Real people read this content before depositing real money, and we take that responsibility seriously. Publishing what is accurate is the obvious part of the job. Fixing what is not, when we get it wrong, is the part that matters more.
Mistakes happen. Operators amend terms without notice. Regulators release provisional figures that get revised. A bonus that behaved one way last week behaves differently this week. Sometimes a source itself is wrong, or we read it wrong. When any of that produces a factual error on something we have published, we correct it openly and the change is dated. There is no quiet rewriting.
This page sets out how that process works in practice.
What counts as a factual error
The distinction we draw is between routine updates and corrections. Both involve editing a live page after the fact, which is where the confusion comes from.
A routine update is the ordinary editorial work of keeping a page accurate as the world changes. Casino operators amend their wagering requirements without ceremony, and when that happens (35x today, 65x next quarter) we revisit the review and update the figure. Regulator data follows the same logic. When the UKGC publishes new quarterly numbers, any guide citing the older figures gets refreshed next time it is edited. None of that involves an admission that the page was previously wrong. It was correct at the time of writing, and is now updated to reflect facts that have moved on.
A correction is something else. It applies when the page was wrong at the time of writing. We stated 35x when the operator’s terms at that date already said 65x. A settlement attributed to the wrong year, or a parent company name that turned out to be wrong from the day we published it, both fall into the same category. These are factual errors rather than updates, and they get treated as such.
How a correction appears on the page
When a material correction is needed, we add a clearly labelled note near the top of the affected article. The format is consistent across the site so readers recognise it on sight.
Each correction note carries the date of the change. It carries the old claim alongside the corrected one. Once the note is in place, we update the body of the piece so the rest of the article matches, and the modified date moves to the day the change was made.
We do not silently rewrite. The correction note stays in place as the public record of what was wrong and what changed. A reader who saw the earlier version of the page can return later and find the correction sitting there, with the accurate version now in the body copy. That is the point of the policy. Transparency wins over presentation.
For purely cosmetic changes that do not affect any fact a reader might have relied on, we update silently. A typo correction, a broken link replaced, an awkward phrase tidied. These are ordinary editorial maintenance, and we make them without flagging anything. The modified date does not shift for cosmetic edits either. That discipline matters; otherwise the date stops carrying any meaning as a signal that real editorial work has happened.
How to report an error you have spotted
Found something we got wrong? Email contact@thebingoonline.com. Include the URL of the page and the specific claim you are disputing. A source backing your version of the facts speeds things up considerably. The operator’s own terms page is often the cleanest reference, or the regulator’s published data where that is what the disagreement turns on. Press releases, settlement documents, court records, anything we can verify against the primary record helps.
Every error report receives a reply. Substantiated corrections are typically actioned within twenty-four to forty-eight hours of confirmation. Sometimes a report does not lead to a correction, because the original claim was right after all, or because the cited source does not actually support the dispute. We will explain why in those cases rather than leaving the reader in silence.
Editorial review and sign-off
Corrections to gambling content carry real weight. The wrong wagering requirement on a high-traffic page affects how much a player chooses to deposit. A misstated licensing claim misleads readers about the protections they think they have. These are not abstract editorial concerns; they are real money consequences for the people who rely on this site.
Each correction is reviewed by the byline author of the original piece where that remains practical, and signed off by the editorial team before publication. If the original byline author is no longer at the site, the editor publishing the correction signs it under their own name. Accountability is named, not anonymous.
There is also the matter of commercial pressure. Some operators we publish critical reviews of pay us, and that financial reality is honest about itself. What it does not change is how reports of factual errors get handled. We have had operators object to corrections we issued and we issued them anyway. We have also had operators flag genuine errors of our own making, and those flagged errors got the same fix as any other.
Where this fits
This policy is one part of a wider editorial framework. The editorial guidelines cover how coverage gets researched and written before publication. The ratings methodology lays out how operators get evaluated. The piece you are reading focuses on what happens when something we have already published turns out to be wrong.
Reader reports are how we catch what we missed. Tell us when we have got it wrong. The path back is contact@thebingoonline.com.
