| Principles | Four principles decide what gets written and what gets held back. First, we only publish what we have verified ourselves — if a bonus clause has not been read in the live cashier, it does not appear in a review. Second, named editors sign every page; anonymous bylines are not used. Third, the referral relationship is disclosed on every review page and expanded in /who-we-are/. Fourth, if we were wrong about something, the correction sits where the mistake was, not in a hidden "corrections" page. |
| Fact checking | Each claim with a number — bonus amount, wagering multiple, payout window, licence number, number of games — is traced to its source before publication. Primary sources are: the live cashier screens of a funded account, the operator's T&C page on the day of writing (archived to our office storage with a date-stamp), the licensing authority's public register, and the payment provider's own documentation for timings. If a number comes from the operator's marketing page and we cannot verify it against one of the sources above, we either omit it or quote it with a visible "operator-stated" marker. |
| Complaints about content | If a reader believes a page is factually wrong or misleading, write to editorial@slot-ornado.com with the URL and the claim being contested. Simple corrections (a changed bonus, a renamed payment method) are fixed within one working day and a short note at the bottom of the page says what moved. Contested interpretations go to Harriet Pemberton first; if the reader is unsatisfied with her response, the escalation reaches Imogen Haldane who holds a second review within five working days. If both editors conclude the complaint is well-founded and the page needs more than a sentence changed, the review is pulled from indexing until it is rewritten. |
| Independence from operators | The operator we review does not read drafts, does not approve copy, does not pay for coverage, and does not have a line of sight into our editorial calendar. The partnership is a flat affiliate contract — a share of the house margin on referred players, nothing more. No bonus programme or VIP tier changes a review score; no account manager at the operator can request a specific wording. We do not run native advertising, we do not accept gifts valued above 50 CAD, and conference travel is paid out of our own budget. If a conflict of interest develops (a close relative joins the operator, a side project needs the operator's investment), the editor involved steps off that review and the other editor takes over. |
| Sources | Primary sources: our test accounts, screenshots and cashier logs; the operator's live site on the day of publication; the regulator's public register for licence verification; the payment provider's own documentation. Secondary sources used when they add context: specialist iGaming trade press for provider studio news (SBC, EGR), the regulator's annual report when payout statistics are needed, academic literature on problem gambling for /legal/play-responsibly/. We do not source from other affiliate sites and we do not reuse screenshots from marketing partners. |
| Sponsored content | slot-ornado.com does not run sponsored posts, sponsored comparisons, "promoted picks", "trending offers paid by X", or any content whose placement is determined by payment. The one commercial relationship on the site — the referral agreement with Slotornado — is disclosed on every review page and in /who-we-are/. If this ever changes (if the site accepts a sponsorship, publishes a sponsored article, or sells inclusion in a comparison), the policy here is the first thing that will be rewritten, with a dated note explaining what has changed and why. |