Review Methodology
The criteria GamblingWise uses before expanding operator, casino or sportsbook reviews.
What reviews must cover
A GamblingWise review should help readers understand licensing, ownership, payments, product quality, support, safer-play tools and commercial transparency.
Reviews should not be written as bonus pages with a thin editorial wrapper. Commercial offers may be mentioned, but they should not replace analysis.
- Licensing and ownership
Identify the operating company, licence information, market restrictions, regulator references and brand ownership where available.
- Payments and verification
Check deposit methods, withdrawal clarity, identity checks, fees, limits and realistic payout timelines.
- Product quality
Assess mobile navigation, market depth, casino lobby structure, live betting, search, support access and account tools.
- Safer-play tools
Check for visible limits, timeouts, self-exclusion, reality checks, support links and how easy they are to find on mobile.
- Terms and transparency
Review bonus rules, restrictions, complaints routes, affiliate labels and whether important terms are easy to find.
- Ongoing updates
Update reviews when licensing, ownership, payment, product or safety details materially change.
Scoring framework
| Area | Weight | What must be checked |
|---|---|---|
| Licensing and ownership | 25% | Operating company, regulator, market restrictions and brand ownership. |
| Payments and verification | 20% | Withdrawal clarity, fees, verification checks, limits and timelines. |
| Product quality | 20% | Mobile experience, market depth, casino lobby, support access and navigation. |
| Safer-play tools | 20% | Limits, timeouts, self-exclusion, reality checks and help visibility. |
| Terms and transparency | 15% | Bonus terms, complaints route, commercial labels and important restrictions. |
Before review-led content is expanded, GamblingWise should use a visible scoring framework: licensing and ownership 25%, payments and verification 20%, product quality 20%, safer-play tools 20%, terms and transparency 15%.
A brand should not be recommended if licensing information is unclear, safer-play tools are hidden, withdrawal terms are misleading or material complaints remain unresolved.
Evidence over claims
Product claims should be checked against live pages, public documents, screenshots or directly attributed company information.
Review cadence
High-traffic reviews should be checked at least quarterly and whenever material licensing or payment information changes.
Relationships disclosed
Paid or referral relationships should be visible and should not override the methodology.
Not recommended if
- Licensing or ownership is unclear.
- Withdrawal terms are misleading or difficult to find.
- Safer-play tools are hidden, incomplete or unavailable.
- Important bonus restrictions are buried or unclear.
- Material complaints remain unresolved without explanation.