How We Create Our Content — How Pages Get Written, Checked and Corrected
The process behind every page: where the facts come from, what gets verified before publishing, how we use AI, when a date is allowed to move, and what we will not claim. Plus how to tell us we have got something wrong.
This page sets out how the content here gets made — the route a page travels before it is published, and what happens afterwards when something in it turns out to be wrong.
It is deliberately about process rather than principles. Every affiliate site says it is independent and accurate. What follows is the specific version of that claim — the parts you could hold us to.
Last reviewed: August 2026.
How a Page Gets Made
Every review and guide follows the same route. The order rarely changes, and no step is optional.
- The page is scoped. We decide what question it answers and who for. If the answer already lives on another page of ours, we improve that page instead of writing a second one.
- The site gets opened. For any page about a specific operator, we open a real account, deposit our own money, and try to withdraw it. That process is described in full on our ratings page.
- The facts get gathered from source. Bonus terms from the operator’s own terms page, licence details from the regulator’s register, rules from the regulation itself. Not from other affiliates, and not from a press release summarising a rule.
- It gets written. By a named person, in their own words, with the awkward parts included rather than smoothed over.
- It gets checked. Figures against the source, links against a live page, claims against what we can actually stand behind.
- It gets published carrying a date and a name. Both are there for your benefit rather than ours.
Where Our Facts Come From
We work to a source order, and it matters more than it sounds.
Primary sources first, always. A bonus term comes from the operator’s terms and conditions, not from a comparison table. A licence comes from the Gambling Commission’s public register, not from a badge in a site’s footer. A rule comes from the regulation or the licence condition itself.
Legislation gets read in the amending text. The announcement and the law are two different documents, and months can sit between them. Commencement dates slip. Thresholds get revised part-way through consultation, sometimes more than once. So we go and read what actually came into force, on what date.
Trade press is never a first citation. Industry outlets are useful for spotting that something has happened. They are not the record of what happened. If a story matters enough to publish, it matters enough to find the underlying document.
Player feedback is labelled as what it is. Where we describe a pattern in what players report — slow withdrawals at a particular site, a recurring complaint about a bonus term — we say it is a feedback pattern rather than dressing it up as something we measured.
Where two sources disagree, the one higher up this list wins.
What We Check Before Publishing
The checks that get run on every page:
Bonus figures, wagering multiples, minimum deposits and expiry windows are read off the operator’s current terms. Licence numbers are confirmed against the register. Every internal link is checked to confirm it lands on the intended page, live, rather than on a redirect. Dates are confirmed to be the dates of actual events. Where we state a regulatory position, we cite the specific condition rather than paraphrasing the regulator.
We also check what we have written against what we have written elsewhere. If two of our pages disagree about the same fact, at least one of them is wrong, and finding that out from a reader is the worst way to find out.
How We Use AI
We use AI tools in research and drafting. A person still writes and edits every page.
They do not publish anything. Every page is read, corrected and approved by a person before it goes live, and the facts are checked by a person against the primary source, because a model that is confidently wrong looks exactly like a model that is right. Where we describe testing, a person did the testing, and we do not generate experience we have not had.
Keeping Pages Current
Bonus terms change without notice, sites close, and regulations commence on dates that move. A page that was accurate in March can be misleading by August without a word of it changing.
So pages carry a visible verification date, and we run a monthly pass across the ones that need it. The rule behind that date is the part worth stating plainly:
We never move a verification date without actually re-checking. A date that advances on its own is a claim that someone looked, when nobody did. For the same reason we do not use auto-updating date tokens anywhere inside a recency claim — a line that prints the current month makes itself true every month without a person going anywhere near it. Where a page says it was verified in a given month, a person verified it in that month.
When something changes that we have not yet re-checked, we would rather show an older honest date than a fresh false one.
When We Get It Wrong
We publish a lot of specific, checkable detail, and some of it will be wrong. Here is what to do about it and what we will do in return.
What happens next: we check the claim against the primary source. If it is wrong, we fix it and re-save the page, which updates its modified date. If we cannot immediately establish which version is right, we take the disputed claim down while we find out, rather than leaving something up that may be misleading.
Where a correction changes the substance of a recommendation — a bonus that is worse than we described, a site we should not have recommended — we say so on the page rather than quietly editing it. A silent fix protects us and tells you nothing.
If your own experience at a site contradicts what we wrote, that is worth reporting too. It is not proof on its own, but several reports pointing the same way is how we learn a site has changed.
Who Can Influence a Page
We earn commission when readers follow our links and deposit, and our advertiser disclosure sets out exactly how that works, including where paid placement exists.
What that money cannot buy is the content. Operators do not see pages before publication, do not get approval over wording, and cannot have criticism removed. When a site has asked, the answer has been no.
The practical test is what happens when a commercial relationship and an honest assessment point in opposite directions. Sites have been pulled from our recommendations for failing our standards while they were still earning us money, and brands have been removed from listings after closing or after we stopped being willing to recommend them. That is the version of independence worth judging us on, because it costs something.
What We Don’t Do
The limits are as much a part of the standard as the checks.
We do not invent first-hand experience. No made-up withdrawal times, no invented support response times, no gameplay we did not have. Where we report what happened in our own test — a withdrawal that cleared on a particular day, a support reply that came back the same afternoon — we date it and treat it as the single observation it is. One withdrawal is not a payout speed. Where we describe an operator’s payout speed or support hours in general terms, that comes from their stated targets or from a pattern in player reports, and we say which.
We do not contact support as a scripted step on every review, so we do not claim to. We get in touch when something needs clarifying or when a term is ambiguous, and we say what came back.
We do not test self-exclusion by triggering it. Doing so would permanently close the account, and faking it is not an option. We confirm the tools exist and can be reached; we do not pretend to have used them.
We do not publish figures we cannot source. If a number cannot be traced to our own documented testing, an operator’s terms, a regulator or an official statistics release, it does not go on the page — and where a figure is contested or the evidence is thin, we say that rather than picking the most striking version.
We do not write about brands we have not looked at. A page listing sites we have never opened would be quicker to produce and worth nothing.
Who Writes Here
Every page carries the name of the person who wrote it and, where a page has been through a later pass, the person who updated it. Full biographies are on our about page; each name below links to that person’s author archive.
Elisha Franklin, Senior Gaming & Promotions Writer — gameplay, promotions and new operator launches.
Joy Thompson, Senior iGaming Content Writer — licensing, payments and comparisons.
Sara Powell, Lead Bonuses & Promotions Editor — wagering requirements and whether a promotion is worth the effort.
Gouri Bhawnani, Research & Compliance Writer — licensing checks and regulatory accuracy. Gouri no longer writes for the site; her work remains under her name, because she wrote it.
Some pages carry a TheBingoOnline editorial team credit rather than an individual byline. That is used where a page is a statement of how the site works rather than one person’s assessment — this page, the ratings page, and the legal pages. It is a publisher credit, not a way of avoiding one.
Two Things This Page Does Not Cover
Responsible gambling has its own page. Our responsible gambling guide covers the tools, what each one actually reaches, and where to get help — and every site we recommend has to offer the controls that page describes.
What we do with your data is set out in our privacy policy. We do not sell reader data.
Questions About How We Work
Write to contact@thebingoonline.com if you want to know more about how any of this works in practice. That includes telling us a standard on this page is weaker than it ought to be. We would rather hear it than not.