AustralianSpins publishes information for adults comparing online casinos, pokies, bonuses, payment methods and gambling rules. Accuracy matters because a wrong figure can affect a deposit, a bonus decision or the route a reader uses to resolve a dispute. Every page should therefore make clear what is an official fact, what was observed in a test, what is editorial analysis and what remains uncertain.
This policy applies to reviews, rankings, guides, fact cards, news, corrections and updates. Our separate review methodology explains the scoring weights and practical casino-testing process in detail.
Core editorial principles
Our work follows six rules:
- Verify before publishing. A repeated claim is not evidence simply because several affiliate sites use it.
- Prefer primary sources. Regulators, legislation, provider documentation, current terms and in-account information come before summaries.
- Separate claims from measurements. An advertised payout time is not presented as our result until a withdrawal has been completed and recorded.
- Explain material limitations. Regional availability, alternative RTP settings, unfinished tests and changing terms should be visible where they affect the conclusion.
- Keep commercial influence out of ratings. A commission cannot purchase a score, ranking position or removal of a supported criticism.
- Correct the record. When reliable evidence shows that a published fact is wrong or outdated, we update it rather than defend the old wording.
Clear writing is part of accuracy. We use Australian English, explain technical terms on first use and convert abstract conditions into practical examples where that helps. A bonus headline should be accompanied by its wagering, maximum-bet, expiry and cashout rules; a pokie’s maximum win should be described as a ceiling rather than an expected result.
Source hierarchy
Different claims require different evidence. We normally use the following order.
Regulation, ownership and law
Official legislation, regulator registers, enforcement notices, court documents and company records are the preferred sources. A licence badge or footer statement is only a lead to verify; it is not conclusive on its own. The company, domain and licence details must refer to the same operation.
Legal pages link to the responsible Australian authority or legislation where practical. They explain the difference between a rule aimed at a provider and one applying to a player, and they avoid turning a general guide into personal legal advice.
Casino offers, payments and account rules
We use current general terms, promotion terms, cashier information, logged-in account screens and written support answers. If the homepage and detailed terms conflict, the stricter applicable condition is treated as the working rule until the operator resolves the discrepancy.
Bonus amounts and payment limits can differ by location, currency, account history or verification level. The page should state those dependencies instead of presenting one account view as universal.
Pokie specifications
The provider page and in-game help or paytable are preferred for reels, pay systems, RTP, volatility, bet range, maximum win and features. We cross-check the fact card against at least one additional suitable source where possible. If the title has several RTP configurations, the review records that fact and directs the reader to the information screen inside the version being played.
Official provider demos are used where available. We do not embed an unofficial copy merely to fill an empty demo area. Demo play can explain mechanics and controls but cannot prove long-run RTP or predict a real-money result.
News and data-led stories
News reports should link to the original announcement, regulator decision, filing, report or dataset whenever one is available. The publication date and the date of the event are checked separately. A company statement is attributed to the company; an allegation is not written as an established finding.
Measured or analytics-led articles describe the sample, period and method. A result is published only when the underlying measurement or analytics export is available. We do not change a sample size, timing or ranking to make a headline more dramatic.
Casino testing and evidence records
Practical tests follow the sequence published in our methodology: pre-registration checks, account opening, deposit, bonus review, gameplay, support, verification and withdrawal. The record should include the date, account location, currency, method, amount and the start and end points used for each timing.
Registration duration, support response, KYC time and payout speed are measured claims. We publish them with the relevant method, amount, date and conditions, and review the surrounding conclusion whenever a result changes.
Screenshots and correspondence may be retained as editorial evidence, with personal and payment details redacted where appropriate. We do not publish a tester’s identity documents, full card information, passwords, one-time codes or private account credentials.
A single successful withdrawal does not prove that every future withdrawal will follow the same path. Tests are dated observations. We compare them with the operator’s published range and explain KYC, method and account factors that may affect another player.
Reviews, scores and rankings
Review scores use the published category weights rather than a price paid by an operator. Trust and safety, payments, games, bonuses, support and mobile use are assessed separately, and a serious problem can override the weighted average.
Rankings answer the question of a particular page. A PayID list gives greater attention to actual PayID access, limits and return routes; a pokies list gives more attention to useful game variety, providers, search and game information. The underlying review score remains the same, but the relevance to the category can change the order.
We explain why a casino occupies its position and include meaningful drawbacks. A list in which every brand is the “best” and every con is cosmetic does not help the reader compare options.
Operators may supply corrections or product information, but they do not receive approval rights over the final article. We may show a disputed factual passage to a source for clarification; the editorial team decides whether the evidence warrants a change.
Affiliate relationships and advertising
AustralianSpins may receive a commission when a reader follows an affiliate link and completes a qualifying action. The relationship is disclosed on relevant pages and explained in our disclaimer.
Editorial and commercial decisions are separate. A partnership does not guarantee coverage, a positive verdict, a minimum rating or a fixed ranking. Non-partner casinos can be included when they are relevant, and a partner can be downgraded or removed when the evidence requires it.
Paid material, if accepted, must be identified so it cannot be mistaken for an independent review. We do not accept payment for an undisclosed link, a fabricated test, a false author credential or the removal of a substantiated safety concern.
Conflicts of interest
Writers and editors should disclose a personal, financial or professional relationship that could reasonably affect coverage. A person who recently worked for an operator should not make an undisclosed judgement about that operator. Complimentary access or test credit, where used, must not change the standard applied and should be disclosed if it materially affects the test.
Staff must not use confidential editorial information to gamble, trade or provide an unfair advantage to another party. Random outcomes from personal play are not evidence for a rating.
Use of automation and AI tools
Software may help organise structured facts, compare files, identify broken links, check calculations, transcribe notes or flag inconsistent wording. Generative tools may assist drafting and editing, but they are not accepted as a source.
A human editor remains responsible for the published page. Names, numbers, licence claims, legal statements, quotes and measured results must be checked against the underlying evidence. We do not create a fictional casino test, author biography, source quotation or player experience to make a page appear complete.
Images created or edited with digital tools must not be presented as documentary proof of a casino screen, payment result or regulator action. Game symbols and screenshots should come from an appropriate source and be described accurately.
Corrections and reader complaints
Anyone can report a possible error through our contact page. A useful correction identifies the URL, disputed statement and supporting evidence. We assess the substance rather than the status of the sender.
Small spelling or formatting fixes may be made without a correction note. A material correction to an operator, licence, bonus condition, payment fact, test result or conclusion should update the page date and, where useful to readers, explain what changed. We do not silently rewrite a major factual error in a way that leaves the old conclusion intact.
If evidence is incomplete, we may add a qualification while the check continues. A threat, commercial demand or unsupported assertion is not a reason to remove accurate reporting.
Review and update schedule
Casino information can change without notice, so important pages are reviewed when we detect a material event rather than relying only on a fixed calendar. Triggers include a new operator or licence, regulator action, changed bonus rules, different payment limits, a major catalogue change, a failed withdrawal, a closed brand or a reader correction supported by evidence.
Evergreen guides are reviewed when the underlying law, official guidance, product behaviour or internal methodology changes. News articles remain a record of what was known at publication, but later developments can be added with a clear update.
The updated date signals the latest editorial pass; it does not mean every linked third-party page will remain unchanged after that date. Readers should verify current terms before acting on information involving money.