Sources & Citations Policy

Last updated: May 2026 · Author: Marcus T., Senior Reviewer

This page describes how SlotMap sources its claims, what kinds of sources we prioritize, how we attribute them, and what we do when sources conflict or cannot be verified.

1. Source hierarchy

Not all sources are created equal. We rank them as follows:

1. Direct test data. When we make a claim about an operator’s KYC turnaround, withdrawal speed, or support response time, the canonical source is our own test cycle, identified by reviewer and date.
2. Regulator’s public register. License authority, license number, license category, and license status are verified directly against the issuing regulator’s public-facing register: UKGC, MGA, ADM (Italy), DGOJ (Spain), ANJ (France), the Gibraltar Regulatory Authority, the Alderney Gambling Control Commission, the Isle of Man Gambling Supervision Commission, the Curaçao eGaming licensing authorities.
3. Regulator enforcement publications. Public notices, fines, license-condition adjustments, and ADR rulings published by the regulator are primary sources for claims about operator behavior.
4. The operator’s own published material. Bonus terms, withdrawal policies, and KYC requirements are quoted from the operator’s own published T&Cs, with the URL and access date documented.
5. Independent ADR (Alternative Dispute Resolution) bodies. IBAS, eCOGRA, and similar bodies publish ruling decisions that are useful primary sources on disputed cases. We rely on these for case-specific claims.
6. Industry trade publications. Outlets covering iGaming with editorial standards (specific named publications we trust on a topic-by-topic basis) provide useful corroboration and context for claims about industry-wide behavior.
7. Reader-reported complaints. Useful for identifying patterns; never the sole basis for a claim that affects an operator’s verdict, because we cannot independently verify a single reader’s account. We treat as a signal that prompts our own investigation.

We avoid relying on operator-affiliated PR material, paid placements, “exclusive bonus” syndication networks, or aggregator review-of-review sites as primary sources.

2. Primary versus secondary sources

Wherever feasible, we cite the primary source even when we discovered it through a secondary source. If a trade publication reports a UKGC enforcement action, we link to the UKGC’s own published notice rather than to the trade publication’s reporting of it. If the secondary source did genuine work in surfacing or interpreting the primary, we credit them, but we follow the chain back to the original.

3. Quotation rules

When we quote bonus terms, T&Cs, or operator policies:

• Direct quotations appear in quotation marks and are attributed to the operator with the URL and access date of the source page.
• Quotations are reproduced accurately, with ellipses for omitted text and brackets for editorial insertions.
• We do not stitch fragments from different parts of a T&C document into apparently continuous text.
• Where we paraphrase a clause, the paraphrase is identified as such, and the original wording is provided alongside or in a footnote.
• We retain dated copies of quoted T&Cs internally so that operator-side post-publication changes can be distinguished from our own attribution errors.

4. Linking practice

• Editorial outbound links open in the same tab unless the article specifically benefits from preserving the user’s reading position; in those cases target="_blank" rel="noopener".
• Affiliate links are clearly marked and follow the rules in our Affiliate Disclosure, with rel="sponsored nofollow".
• Sponsored content is marked with rel="sponsored".
• Untrusted destinations linked for documentary purposes are marked with rel="nofollow".
• Operator T&C page links may be marked rel="nofollow" when the link is for citation rather than recommendation.

5. Conflicting sources

When sources disagree, we report the disagreement. Common cases in casino review writing:

• Operator-supplied vs. regulator-supplied license details. The regulator wins. If the operator describes itself as licensed by Authority X but the public register shows otherwise, we report the discrepancy.
• Operator-claimed vs. independently-tested behavior. Test results win. If the operator advertises 24-hour withdrawals but our testing found 5 days, the test results are reported.
• Reader complaints vs. operator response. We report both, distinguishing what each side claims, and we report any independent verification we can perform.

6. Unverified claims

We do not publish factual claims we have not been able to verify, even when other publications are running with them. If a claim about a license suspension, ownership change, or regulatory action is widely reported but rests on unverified sourcing, we report on the existence of the story while explaining what is and is not actually verified.

7. Personal experience as evidence

The single most-used source on this site is our own test-cycle data. To make personal experience reliable as evidence:

• The reviewer’s identity is identified in the article.
• The test conditions are specified (date, jurisdiction, deposit amount, account tier).
• Where our testing reveals behavior different from the operator’s published policy, we say so and quote both.
• Where personal experience contradicts public-facing operator claims, we explain the contradiction rather than just asserting our experience.

8. Citations to our own previous work

When an article references a claim or review we have already published, we link to the previous article. This makes our reasoning auditable across articles and surfaces relationships between pieces. We do not over-link to our own work for SEO reasons; the standard is whether the link genuinely helps the reader.

9. Removed and broken sources

Operator T&C pages are particularly unstable; operators routinely update their bonus terms and withdrawal policies, sometimes without changing the URL. When we discover that a cited operator policy has changed materially since publication, we add an update note and provide both the original quotation (with our access date) and the new wording. Where a regulator’s published notice has been removed or moved, we link to an archived version through the Internet Archive.

10. Disagreement with our sourcing

If you believe an article has cited a source incorrectly, drawn an incorrect inference from a source, or failed to cite a source that should have been cited, please send an email to info [at] slotmap [punto] space with the subject line Sourcing question: [URL].

11. AI and source verification

We do not rely on language models as sources. A model that confidently states a license number, regulator decision, or bonus term does not constitute verification of that fact. When AI tools surface potentially relevant information during research, we treat the surfaced information as a lead to verify against primary sources, not as a citable source itself. See our AI Usage Policy for the full position.

Related pages: Editorial Standards · How We Test · Corrections Policy · AI Usage Policy · Casino Review Policy