Editorial Policy
The editorial standards behind every Gransino review, guide and comparison page are written down here for one reason: so readers can pin us to a fixed rule instead of to whatever happens to feel reasonable on a given day. Curious who actually runs the site? That's the About page, and the flagship operator review sits on the Gransino Casino homepage. Any procedure named below — how reviews are built, fact-checked, corrected and kept current — holds for everything we publish, no exceptions.
1. Editorial independence
Gransino is funded by affiliate commissions earned when readers click through to an operator and decide to register there. The full mechanics are on the Affiliate Disclosure page. Editorially, the rule is brief: a partnership buys no higher rating, and the lack of one yields no lower score. One consistent rating framework is applied in the same way to every operator that receives a full Gransino review. We have scored partner operators at six and below, and scored operators with no commercial relationship at eight and above. Sales, marketing and editorial run as separate workflows; the editorial team holds the final say on every published score.
2. Sources we trust
Gransino content draws on four kinds of source, ordered by weight.
- Hands-on testing. Reviews come out of genuine accounts on operator platforms, using real deposits and real withdrawal requests. This is the primary source for everything in a review bar verifiable third-party facts.
- Regulator and government records. Licensing status, ownership filings, UKGC register entries, GAMSTOP records and Gambling Act 2005 references. These are the authoritative source for any legal claim on Gransino.
- Independent player-community evidence. How an operator's reputation holds up over time on AskGamblers, Casino Guru and Trustpilot, alongside Reddit and the dedicated player forums. We lean on this to sanity-check our own testing — never as a standalone primary source.
- Operator-supplied content. The press releases, marketing pages and partnership briefings get read for background only — we never present them as if independently confirmed. Any figure that traces back to the operator is labelled as such in the review.
3. Fact-checking
Every operator review passes a four-step fact-check before it goes live. First, the licensing claim is checked against the regulator's public register. Second, the bonus arithmetic is recalculated from the operator's published terms and set against the headline figure on the marketing page; any gap is flagged in the review. Third, the named payment methods, withdrawal speeds and minimum deposits are confirmed against the cashier rather than the FAQ (the two frequently disagree). Fourth, the game catalogue claims are spot-checked against named studios and named titles to confirm the marketing lines up with the lobby.
The figures that move around a lot — bonus terms, withdrawal caps, minimum deposits — get flagged in our internal tracker and revisited on the timetable set out below. Whenever a revisit catches a changed value, three things follow: the review itself is amended, the page's top-of-page date rolls forward, and a brief dated line goes in at the bottom spelling out exactly what shifted.
4. Quotation, paraphrase and attribution
We reserve word-for-word quoting for cases where the exact phrasing genuinely matters — regulator notices, official terms and conditions, court filings. The rest of the time, paraphrase wins, always with the source named alongside it. Marketing copy from an operator gets recast in our own words; their press releases never get republished here as Gransino content. And whenever a third-party figure turns up — a Trustpilot score, an AskGamblers complaint tally — both the source and a live link go with it.
When we cite numbers — on gambling harm, on enforcement action, on how large the UK online casino market is — they trace back to government, academic or peer-reviewed sources. Figures that originate with an industry association only make the cut once something independent backs them up.
5. Authorship and AI assistance
A named human — a writer or an editorial-team member — is behind every Gransino article. AI tools are allowed a narrow supporting role: sketching outlines, condensing lengthy source documents, catching grammar slips, throwing up headline alternatives. What they are not allowed to do is produce the analytical core of a review (the score, the strengths-and-weaknesses rundown, the comparative call) or invent quotes and testing results. Any fact that first surfaced through an AI tool is verified against an independent source before it goes live, and it's that source we cite — not the tool.
6. Corrections and updates
Corrections are dealt with in three tiers, according to how serious the error is.
- Minor (typo, broken link, formatting glitch): fixed quietly within one business day.
- Substantive (a fact, number or claim that materially shapes a reader's decision): fixed within five business days, with a dated note added to the foot of the page setting out what changed and why. The original wording is kept in our internal version history but not republished.
- Material (an error grave enough to change the overall verdict, or a regulatory development affecting multiple operators): fixed within two business days, with a prominent banner at the top of the page for at least 30 days, and an entry on a dedicated corrections log reachable from this page.
Spotted what looks like an error on a Gransino page? Flag it on the Contact page. Either way — whether the correction is made in the end or not — any substantive complaint gets recorded against the review it concerns.
7. Freshness
Operator reviews get a full review at least every 12 months, and key data points (bonuses, withdrawal speeds, payment methods) are re-checked each quarter. Topic guides and methodological pages are reviewed yearly. The "Last updated" date at the top of every page tracks the most recent factual review, not merely the latest typo-level edit.
8. Conflict of interest
Gransino editorial team members hold no equity in, take no consulting fees from, and keep no paid affiliate relationships with operators they personally review. Where a potential conflict arises, the writer is moved to a different operator and the reassignment is logged in our internal tracking. The site-level partnerships listed on the Affiliate Disclosure page are operational, not personal, and run on a separate workflow from editorial.
9. Reader safety
Gransino reviews adult products. Three editorial commitments flow from that. First, no Gransino page frames gambling as a way to earn income; the framing is always "paid entertainment with downside risk". Second, every operator review and every comparative page links to Responsible Gambling tools and the relevant UK helplines, not buried in a footnote but as visible content. Third, no Gransino page aims its language, imagery or examples at minors, problem gamblers or self-excluded players. Where an operator's marketing crosses any of those lines, the review says so and the score drops accordingly.
10. Complaints, escalation and right of reply
Operators that take issue with a Gransino rating may write to the editorial address with a specific factual claim and supporting evidence. Three outcomes are possible: the claim is correct, so the review is updated and a correction note added; the claim is partly correct, so the review is updated for the verified portion while the rest stands with the reasoning recorded internally; or the claim is wrong, so the review is left as is and the operator told in writing. We do not get into pre-publication negotiation over scores.
Concerned about how Gransino handles its editorial duties? Take it up through the Contact page — complaints tied to a specific review get a reply within five business days. Anything to do with the data we hold on you, by contrast, is governed by the Privacy Policy page, whose technical sibling is the Cookie Policy page.