Our Standards

Three principles sit above everything else: honesty about how the site is funded, numbers over adjectives, and the reader’s money before our own commission. We would rather recommend against taking a bonus than describe a mediocre one in flattering language. When something at Pulsarspins gets worse, we say so, even if it costs us conversions. A fourth principle, less visible but doing a lot of work in the background: the review page you read today should be the review page we would have published a year ago if the facts had been the same. Our opinion on an operator is not supposed to drift with the commission rate or with the operator’s mood towards us. If the terms are good this week and bad next week, so is the review. A fifth, often forgotten principle: we write for the reader who has not yet made the decision. That reader is better served by a sentence that admits a trade-off than by a sentence that papers over one, and that distinction shapes how we handle every tricky page on this site.

Primary sources: Pulsarspins’ own terms, bonus pages, banking pages and in-account settings. Secondary sources: regulator pages, provider pages (Pragmatic Play, Play'n GO, Relax Gaming) for RTP and feature claims, and public filings where relevant. Reader reports: screenshots and timelines from real players, used only after we can verify the key facts independently. We cite primary sources when a reader could sensibly ask ‘where did that number come from?’ — in practice, that means every bonus percentage, every withdrawal timeline and every licence reference carries a reference link to the operator’s own page or to a public regulator record. When primary and secondary sources disagree, we flag the disagreement rather than silently picking one: readers deserve to see when a casino’s own number is lower than its licence filing, or when a provider’s stated RTP is above what the casino’s terms allow for the same game.

If you believe something we published is misleading, write to [email protected] with the URL and a short description of the problem. We acknowledge within one business day and resolve within ten. If you are not satisfied with the resolution, the Complaints page explains how to escalate. We treat complaints about content differently from complaints about the operator: content complaints land on the editor’s desk; operator complaints land on the Complaints page because they are matters for the operator and, if needed, an ADR body — not for us. A complaint that we judge to be well-founded gets both a published correction and, where appropriate, a short internal post-mortem the team reads. The point of the post-mortem is to prevent the next similar mistake, not to punish anyone — a review site this small cannot afford either defensive culture or careless publication.

When we get something wrong, we fix the page, we add a short line at the bottom describing what was corrected and when, and we add the correction to the Updates feed. We do not silently rewrite pages. Readers who flagged the error are credited by first name unless they ask not to be. If a correction materially changes our recommendation (for example, a bonus is less generous than we first said), we also post a short note on the site’s front page for at least a week, so that readers who saw the original claim do not miss the correction. Our standard for ‘material’ is practical, not legal: anything that would plausibly change a reader’s decision to deposit — bonus value, wagering, maximum cashout, banking fees, geographic eligibility — is material. A typo or a changed phone number is not.

Every number that appears on a review page — minimum deposit, maximum bonus, wagering requirement, withdrawal timeline — is checked against the operator’s own page on the day it is published, and re-checked at least once a quarter. Pages that have not been re-checked within 90 days are flagged with a visible notice at the top. We keep a small internal spreadsheet of ‘claims to re-check’ — things we published that are liable to drift (bonus percentages, maximum cashout, list of banned countries). A fact-checker goes through the spreadsheet weekly, not quarterly, because some fields change more often than others. When a reader points out a specific number is wrong, that single pointer triggers a full-page re-check, not a one-line patch. The reason: a number that is wrong today was usually copied from somewhere, and whatever source it was copied from often has more than one wrong number on it.