Editorial Policy

This policy explains how SpinFin approaches factual casino information, promotional claims, market comparisons, explanatory guides and review-style editorial content. For the broader purpose and funding model of the site, see About SpinFin. It also explains where commercial relationships can influence what appears on the site.

The purpose is practical: a reader should be able to understand which claims are intended to be factual, how time-sensitive information is checked, and what happens when information changes or an error is found.

SpinFin is an affiliate-funded information website. Commercial relationships can influence whether an operator or offer is included and how prominently it is displayed. That influence is disclosed rather than presented as if every placement were commercially neutral.

Commercial value does not justify changing factual information. A paid or affiliate relationship should never be used as a reason to invent a licence, improve a bonus figure, hide an important restriction, manufacture a customer review or state a withdrawal time that has not been supported by available information.

When a claim can change over time, SpinFin should prefer the most direct and current source available. Regulatory rules should be checked against the relevant regulator. Promotional conditions should be checked against current offer terms where they are available. Payment limits, eligibility rules and product details should be checked against the service that controls those conditions.

Independent comparison sites, archived pages and third-party listings can be useful for cross-checking or identifying changes, but they should not automatically override a current primary source. If reliable sources disagree, the uncertainty should be reflected in the wording rather than silently choosing the most attractive figure.

Bonus figures are highly time-sensitive. A headline amount is not treated as a complete promotion. Where information is available, the review process should also consider the qualifying deposit, wagering requirement, free-spin conditions, eligible games, maximum stake, expiry period, payment exclusions and regional eligibility.

If a promotion is independently reported but cannot be confirmed as available to a specific UK visitor, SpinFin should say that eligibility or regional availability applies instead of presenting the offer as guaranteed. When a current destination page displays different terms, the destination's live terms take priority for the user deciding whether to opt in. The current public-facing application of this process can be seen in the SpinFin Bonus guide.

Licensing statements should be treated as factual claims, not marketing decoration. A licence number, regulator, authorisation status or target market should not be added simply because another review site repeats it.

Where the legal or regulatory position is unclear, SpinFin should use cautious wording and avoid implying that a service is authorised for a market unless that conclusion is supported. The same rule applies when regulations change: older articles should not be relied on when a newer rule has already taken effect.

Deposit methods, minimums, withdrawal limits, processing times and verification requirements can differ by payment method, currency, account status and location. SpinFin should distinguish between a stated limit and a general observation such as an e-wallet often being quicker than a bank transfer. The current public-facing application of this process is the SpinFin Payments & Withdrawals guide. Account-access claims use the same approach in the SpinFin Login & Registration guide: exact live fields are not invented when they cannot be verified.

Exact processing times should not be presented as guaranteed unless the underlying source makes that guarantee. Where conditions vary, the content should tell readers to check the current cashier or account terms before relying on a figure.

A game or provider can be added, removed or restricted by location. Provider lists are therefore treated as snapshots rather than permanent promises. SpinFin may use representative examples to explain the shape of a game catalogue, but should not claim that a title is currently playable if that has not been verified.

Statements about RTP, volatility, jackpots or game mechanics should come from the relevant game information or another source capable of supporting the claim. No strategy is described as capable of guaranteeing profit from a casino game.

SpinFin does not present invented names, locations, review counts or verification badges as genuine customer testimony. Editorially written player-perspective sections must be identified as editorial content rather than disguised as independently submitted reviews.

If SpinFin later publishes a numerical rating or ranking, the methodology should explain the factors used and disclose whether commercial relationships can influence inclusion or prominence. A score should not imply scientific precision if it is ultimately an editorial judgement.

Market comparisons should compare like with like wherever possible. A large headline bonus should not automatically be labelled better than a smaller offer with simpler conditions, and a large game count should not automatically be treated as better navigation or better value.

Commercial relationships may influence which products are included or where they appear. For that reason, a featured position should not be interpreted as a universal recommendation. Readers should compare the factors relevant to them, including legality, terms, payment rules, responsible-gambling tools and personal risk tolerance.

Gambling is described as paid entertainment involving financial risk, not as an income strategy, investment or solution to money problems. Content should not encourage chasing losses, borrowing to gamble, increasing stakes to recover money or treating a bonus as guaranteed cash.

Where responsible-gambling information is relevant, SpinFin should point readers toward practical limits, self-exclusion and appropriate support. Commercial conversion is not treated as more important than a clear warning about gambling harm.

Formatting, comparison and quality-control tools do not replace source verification. Time-sensitive facts such as bonuses, regulation, payment limits and support contacts should be checked against appropriate underlying sources when they are published or materially updated.

An uncertain claim should not be rewritten as a confident one. If the available evidence does not support a detail, the detail should be omitted, qualified or clearly identified as unconfirmed.

If SpinFin discovers that a material fact is wrong, the preferred response is to correct the page rather than leave the error because it performs well in search or converts well commercially. Material corrections can include bonus values, regulatory claims, payment limits, support contacts and statements that could change a reader's decision.

Small spelling, formatting and readability edits do not require a formal correction note. Where a change substantially alters the meaning of a factual claim, the page's update date should be refreshed and the surrounding content reviewed for the same outdated information.

Not every fact becomes stale at the same speed. Promotional offers and regulatory rules require more frequent attention than evergreen explanations of concepts such as chasing losses or why a budget matters. SpinFin therefore prioritises review based on how quickly a claim can change and how much harm an incorrect claim could cause.

A visible publication or update date does not mean every external condition will remain unchanged after that date. Readers should confirm current transactional terms before depositing, opting into a promotion or making another decision involving money.

• Fabricated customer reviews, identities or review statistics.
• Guaranteed-profit claims or systems presented as a way to beat casino mathematics.
• Licence or regulatory claims that are known to be unsupported.
• Outdated bonus values retained only because the larger figure is more attractive.
• Hidden affiliate relationships presented as completely independent recommendations.
• Important promotional restrictions intentionally buried away from a headline offer.

If a reader believes a factual statement is outdated or incorrect, the useful response is a specific correction: identify the page, the disputed claim and, where possible, the current source that supports a different value. Use the Contact, Complaints & Corrections page for the reporting route and the details that help verification.

SpinFin should review credible correction requests against the strongest available evidence. Commercial pressure alone is not a sufficient reason to change a supported factual statement, and commercial benefit is not a sufficient reason to keep a statement that has become false.