Our Team

The author of each page is listed at the top of that page, with a short bio, areas of expertise, and a link to all the other pages they maintain. If you need to reach a specific author with a correction, use the Contact page and name the author in the subject line — your message will be routed to them. We also keep an archive page of former authors: when someone leaves the team, their pages are not deleted, but a note is added that the current maintainer is now a different person. That matters for accountability — a page written three years ago by a person who no longer works on the site is still being stood behind by whoever maintains it today. Author bios are kept short and factual: how long they have covered online casinos, what kinds of operators they have the most hands-on experience with, and what they will say ‘no’ to (no author on this site writes about products they have not personally used).

For issues that go beyond a single page — the overall direction of the site, a complaint about tone, a conflict of interest you have spotted — write to the editor directly at [email protected]. The editor reads every message and answers within three business days. Messages to the editor are not routed through the general support queue; they go to one inbox and are read by one person. That is deliberate, both so that nothing structural gets lost in day-to-day correction traffic and so that complaints about individual team members can be raised without going through the people being complained about. Confidentiality is standard: if you ask us to keep your identity out of a correction, we do. If a message raises a problem we cannot fix at our end — for instance, a reader report about an unresponsive operator — we always say so clearly, point you to the right escalation path, and invite you to come back if that escalation stalls.

The site is run by a small editorial team: a lead reviewer who writes the main pages, a fact-checker who verifies numbers and terms, and a web editor who handles updates and the Changelog. We do not have paid influencers, we do not run sponsored posts, and no member of the team holds a position at Pulsarspins or any other operator covered on this site. The team is deliberately small. A review site that goes wide — ‘we cover 400 operators across 50 jurisdictions’ — cannot be checking every claim on every page every quarter. We would rather maintain one brand thoroughly than ten brands shallowly, and the staffing on this site reflects that choice. The lead reviewer sets the editorial line and signs off on the overall score of every page. The fact-checker owns the ‘claims to re-check’ spreadsheet, so numbers that drift (bonus percentages, maximum cashout, banned-country lists) are picked up before readers do. The web editor runs the publication queue, the Updates feed and the response to reader corrections, and is the first point of contact for anything that is not clearly a bug on the site itself.

Each page has one author of record. That author is responsible for the content, the sources and the date the page was last checked. Changes to a page are reviewed by at least one other person on the team before they go live. Serious factual corrections go through our Corrections process (see the Editorial Standards page). We hold a short editorial meeting once a week to decide which pages are due for a re-check, which reader notes need to be acted on, and which claims by the operator we have not yet verified for ourselves. Minutes from those meetings are not public but the decisions that come out of them show up in the Updates feed. Independence is not a slogan — it is enforced by small procedural rules. The person who wrote a page is not the person who approves changes to that page’s score. The person who runs the affiliate contract with the operator is not the person who signs off on the editorial recommendation. These separations are what let us tell a reader with a straight face that a bad quarter from Pulsarspins will be reflected in the review within days of the next check-in.