Editorial Policy

Three principles govern every page on gamblegorilla.bet. Accuracy comes first: numbers we publish must match the operator's own terms on the day of publication. Independence comes second: no operator can buy a higher score, a longer review or a better placement in a table; commercial deals affect which operators we cover but not what we say about them. Readability comes third: we write in plain Australian English so a reader with no prior knowledge can judge an operator in five minutes. If any of these three slip, we rewrite the page before it leaves draft.

Every editor on gamblegorilla.bet signs an annual conflict-of-interest declaration listing any personal gambling habits, any operators from which they currently hold an open account, any family relationships with operators or regulators, and any financial relationships with the operators we cover. The declarations are not published but they are reviewed by the publisher before a reviewer is assigned to an operator; a reviewer with a personal account at an operator does not write that operator's review.

Corrections are not failures to hide — they are evidence that the system works. When a reader or editor spots an error, we fix the page immediately, log the change in the page footer with the date and the nature of the correction, and if the change is material we add a note at the top of the page for thirty days. Minor typos are corrected silently; factual, numerical or legal corrections always carry a note.

Serious corrections — those where a reader could have made a different decision based on the wrong fact — are also notified to our mailing list, which is an opt-in list for readers who want to hear about updated reviews. The mailing list is run on a self-hosted system; we do not use Mailchimp, Substack, Beehiiv or any third-party sender. Opt-out is a single click, and the opt-out is honoured in under one second.

Facts in a review are sourced from four places, in this order of preference. First, the operator's own terms and conditions on the day of publication, captured as a timestamped PDF in our editorial archive. Second, the licence filing on the regulator's register — for the brands we cover, that is almost always the Curacao Gaming Control Board. Third, the operator's game lobby, where we count providers and games with a scripted tally. Fourth, our own test logs recorded during the review — deposit confirmations, withdrawal timings, support transcripts. Reader anecdotes and forum posts are not used as sources on their own.

Primary sources are preserved in an editorial archive that is backed up weekly to encrypted storage on a European provider. If an operator later disputes a fact that was correct on the day of publication but has since been changed on their site, our archive is the record of what we saw. We make the archive available to the licensing regulator on request and to the operator's compliance team on written request.

Every published page has been read by a second editor against the primary source for each number. The second editor's initials appear in the page footer alongside the writer's byline. For reviews that mention regulatory status, the second editor opens the licence register during the check — a cached PDF is not sufficient when the regulator can change the status at any time. If any fact cannot be verified, we remove it from the published page rather than hedge it.

A page that fails the second-editor check is not published until the fail is resolved. There is no deadline that overrides a failed check — a review goes out when it is right or it does not go out at all. Pages that have been published and are later found to be wrong go through a Correction (see above) and, in serious cases, a Retraction note at the top of the page that remains in place until the issue is fully resolved.