Corrections Policy
Last updated: May 2026 · Author: Giovanni Picaro, Editor-in-Chief
Casino review accuracy directly affects whether readers risk their money with operators we have covered. Corrections are not optional or aspirational; they are the operational backbone of trust on this site. This page describes how SlotMap handles factual errors, outdated information, regulatory changes, and editorial misjudgments.
1. The four types of post-publication change
We distinguish carefully between four kinds of changes we may make to a published review or article. Each is treated differently.
| Type | When it applies | How it is marked |
|---|---|---|
| Correction | A factual claim was wrong (license details, corporate ownership, bonus terms, regulatory status) | “Correction” note at the bottom with date and original error |
| Update | New information emerged (license suspended, bonus terms changed, KYC behavior changed, regulator action) | “Update” note dated, with summary of the new information |
| Clarification | The original was technically accurate but reasonably misread | “Clarification” note explaining what was reasonably misread and why |
| Retraction | The review is fundamentally unsound and cannot be saved by correction (e.g., the operator’s license was revoked, or the testing was found to be substantively compromised) | Visible retraction notice replacing the article, with explanation |
2. Corrections in detail
A correction is the appropriate response when a review contains a verifiably wrong factual claim. Examples in casino review writing include: a license authority misidentified, a license number transcribed incorrectly, a parent-company attribution wrong, a bonus wagering requirement misquoted, a withdrawal-time average misstated, a KYC document requirement omitted, a complaint-history source misread.
When we make a correction:
- We fix the error in the review body.
- We add a “Correction” note at the bottom of the review with the date, the original incorrect text, and the corrected version.
- If the error materially affected the verdict, we say so explicitly.
What we do not do: silently revise published material. Once a review has been read by a real reader, that reader is entitled to know if the review they read has been changed.
3. Updates in detail
An update is the appropriate response when something happens after publication that changes the picture but the original review was correct as published. Casino-industry examples: an operator’s license is suspended or surrendered; an operator changes its bonus terms after our review; an operator’s KYC behavior or withdrawal speed deteriorates significantly; the regulator publishes an enforcement action.
Updates are dated and summarized in a clearly marked note. We do not rewrite the original review to incorporate new information silently; the historical record of what we said when we said it remains intact, with the update added.
Operator-side changes prompt update notes within seven days of credible information; regulator-side changes prompt update notes within 48 hours where they affect verdict.
4. Clarifications in detail
A clarification is the appropriate response when a review was technically accurate but used wording that a reasonable reader could misinterpret. We use this category sparingly. Most apparent clarifications are actually corrections (the original was wrong) or refusals to clarify (the original was clear and the misreading is the reader’s). We try not to soften the distinction.
5. Retractions — especially for license and license-tier issues
A retraction is the most serious response and is reserved for reviews whose factual or analytical foundations have collapsed. We commit to retracting any review where:
- The license verification was substantively wrong (the operator did not hold the license we attributed, or held a different category of license than reported).
- The reviewing process was materially compromised (a member of the team had an undisclosed conflict, the testing was not actually performed, or test data was misrepresented).
- The operator’s license was revoked, surrendered, or suspended in circumstances that fundamentally change the basis on which we recommended any consideration of the operator.
Retracted reviews do not vanish from the site. The URL continues to serve the retraction notice, so that any link from elsewhere reaches a clear explanation rather than a 404.
6. How to submit a correction request
If you have spotted an error, we want to know about it. Please email info [at] slotmap [punto] space with the subject line Correction request: [URL] and include:
- The full URL of the review or article in question.
- The specific text you believe is incorrect.
- What you believe the correct version should be.
- A source for the correct version, if available.
Most correction requests we receive are well-founded, and we are grateful for them. A small number are based on misreadings. A few are bad-faith attempts (often from operator-affiliated parties) to alter the editorial record on behalf of an interested party; we recognize these and do not act on them.
7. Special procedure for operator-submitted corrections
When a correction request comes from a representative of a reviewed operator, additional handling applies:
- We require the request to identify the sender’s relationship to the operator.
- We verify the claimed correction against authoritative sources (regulator, ADR, the operator’s own published material) before acting.
- If the operator-supplied “correction” contradicts authoritative sources, we reject it and we may publish a note explaining the rejection.
- If the operator’s evidence is genuinely better than ours, we make the correction normally.
- We do not act on operator-side correction requests that amount to “please soften the negative review.”
8. Timing
We aim to acknowledge correction requests within 48 business hours. License- and verdict-affecting corrections are typically acted on within seven days. Simple corrections (numeric facts, name spellings) are usually made within the same response.
License-tier and regulatory corrections are treated with priority and are typically acted on within 24 hours of credible information, because the consequences for readers acting on the original wrong information can be material.
9. Corrections to images, captions, and metadata
The same standards apply to image captions, alt-text, social-media share metadata, and screenshots from the testing cycle. If a screenshot caption misidentifies a feature or attributes it to the wrong operator, we correct it the same way we correct article body text.
10. The internal correction log
We maintain an internal log of every correction, update, clarification, and retraction we have issued. The log is not currently published in full, but the per-article notes at the bottom of each piece make our corrections public on the article level. We may consider publishing aggregate statistics in a future annual transparency report.
11. Why this matters
Readers act on what we publish. They sign up at operators we recommend; they avoid operators we flag; they expect bonus terms to be quoted accurately; they expect license claims to be verifiable. The willingness to correct visibly — rather than silently scrub the record — is the most concrete form that reader trust takes.
For the broader editorial principles, read our Editorial Standards. For our practice of citing sources, read our Sources & Citations Policy. For our process from idea to publication, read How We Work.
Related pages: Editorial Standards · Sources & Citations · How We Test · How We Work · Contact Us