Editorial Policy
This page documents the editorial standards Instaspin applies to its reviews, guides and comparison pages. Its purpose is so readers can measure us against a written rule rather than whatever feels reasonable on the day. The broader context for who runs the site sits on the About page, with the flagship operator review on the Instaspin Casino homepage. Where this page describes a procedure — review production, fact-checking, corrections, freshness — that procedure is followed for every piece of content published on the site.
1. Editorial independence
Instaspin is funded through affiliate commissions earned when readers click through to an operator and choose to register there. The full mechanics live on the Affiliate Disclosure page. Editorially, the rule is short: a partnership does not earn a higher rating, and the absence of one does not produce a lower score. A consistent rating framework is applied identically to every operator that gets a full Instaspin review. We have rated partner operators at six and below, and rated operators with no commercial relationship at eight and above. Sales, marketing and editorial are run as separate workflows; the editorial team has the final say on every published score.
2. Sources we trust
Instaspin content is built from four kinds of source, ranked by weight.
- Hands-on testing. Reviews are produced from actual accounts on operator platforms, using real deposits and real withdrawal requests. This is the primary source for everything in a review except verifiable third-party facts.
- Regulator and government records. Licensing status, ownership filings, UKGC register entries, GAMSTOP records, Gambling Act 2005 references. These are the authoritative source for any legal claim on Instaspin.
- Independent player-community evidence. Long-term reputation across AskGamblers, Casino Guru, Trustpilot, plus Reddit and dedicated player forums. Used as a sanity check on testing results, not as a primary source on its own.
- Operator-supplied material. Press releases, marketing landing pages, partnership briefing decks. Read for context only and never cited as though independently verified. Where a figure traces back to the operator, the review states that openly.
3. Fact-checking
Each operator review moves through a four-stage fact-check ahead of publication. The first stage verifies the licensing claim against the regulator's public register. The second stage recomputes the bonus arithmetic from the operator's published terms and the result is compared against the headline figure on the marketing page; any discrepancy is flagged in the review. Third, the named payment methods, withdrawal speeds and minimum deposits are verified 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 matches the lobby.
Numerical claims that shift frequently — bonus terms, withdrawal limits, minimum deposits — are tagged in our internal tracking and re-checked on the schedule below. If a re-check shows the number has shifted, the review is amended, the date at the top of the page is updated, and a small dated note is appended at the bottom of the review describing what changed.
4. Quotation, paraphrase and attribution
Direct quoting is held back for material where the precise wording carries weight: regulator notices, official terms, court documents. In every other case paraphrasing is the default, with the source attributed inline. Operator marketing copy is reworked in our own voice; we do not re-publish operator press releases as Instaspin content. Where a third-party number is reported — a Trustpilot rating, an AskGamblers complaint count — the source is named and a working link is provided.
Statistical points about gambling harm, regulatory enforcement, or the scale of the UK online casino industry are sourced to government, academic or peer-reviewed sources. Industry-association figures are used only when independent corroboration is available.
5. Authorship and AI assistance
Every Instaspin article is authored by a named human writer or editorial team member. AI tools can be used for narrowly scoped tasks: drafting article outlines, summarising lengthy source documents, running grammar checks, generating alternative headline options. AI tools are not used to produce the analytical content of a review — the score, the strengths-and-weaknesses summary, the comparative judgement — or to fabricate quotes or testing results. Any factual claim that originated in an AI tool is verified against an independent source before publication, and the source is cited rather than the AI tool.
6. Corrections and updates
Corrections are processed across three tiers, depending on how serious the underlying error happens to be.
- Minor (typographical error, broken hyperlink, formatting glitch): corrected silently inside one working day.
- Substantive (a fact, number, or claim that materially affects a reader's decision): fixed within five business days, with a dated note appended to the foot of the page explaining what was changed and why. The original wording is preserved in our internal version history but is not republished.
- Material (an error so significant that it would change the overall verdict, or a regulatory development that affects multiple operators): fixed within two business days, with a prominent banner at the top of the page for at least 30 days, and a notice on a dedicated corrections log accessible from this page.
Readers who suspect an Instaspin page carries an error can raise it through the Contact page. Substantive complaints are logged against the relevant review whether or not we ultimately make the correction.
7. Freshness
Operator reviews are revisited in full at minimum once every 12 months, while core data points (bonuses, withdrawal speeds, payment methods) are re-verified each quarter. Topic guides and methodology pages get an annual review. The "Last updated" date at the top of every page reflects the most recent factual review, not just the most recent typo-level edit.
8. Conflict of interest
Instaspin editorial-team members own no equity in, take no consulting fees from, and run no paid affiliate relationships with operators they personally cover. Where a potential conflict comes up, the writer is reassigned to a different operator and the reassignment is recorded in our internal tracking. The site-level partnerships listed on the Affiliate Disclosure page are operational, not personal, and run as a separate workflow from editorial.
9. Reader safety
Instaspin covers adult-only products. Three editorial commitments follow from that. First, no Instaspin page presents gambling as an income channel; the framing stays "paid entertainment carrying downside risk". Second, every operator review and each comparative page links to Responsible Gambling tools and the relevant UK helplines, not as a footnote but as visible content. Third, no Instaspin page targets 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 reflects it.
10. Complaints, escalation and right of reply
Operators that take issue with an Instaspin rating may email the editorial address with a specific factual point and backup evidence. Three outcomes can result: the claim is correct, the review is refreshed, and a correction note is added. The claim is partially correct, the review is refreshed for the verified portion, and the rest is left unchanged with reasoning recorded internally. The claim is incorrect, the review is unchanged, and the operator is informed in writing. We do not enter into pre-publication negotiation over scores.
Readers with concerns about Instaspin editorial practice can escalate via the Contact page; complaints about specific reviews are answered within five working days. Privacy-related questions about the data we hold are governed by the Privacy Policy page, with the technical companion on the Cookie Policy page.