Editorial Policy
This is the rulebook the JeetCity Casino editorial team works to. It covers how reviews are produced, who is qualified to write them, what sources we accept, how we handle factual disputes, and the wall we maintain between editorial work and commercial relationships. The policy exists in writing so that readers, regulators and operators can hold us to it. If anything published on the site falls short of these standards, we want to know about it.
Editorial principles
Four principles drive everything else on this page.
Accuracy. Every factual claim in a review must be verifiable against the operator's own published documentation, the regulator's own records, or our own logged testing. If a fact cannot survive that check, it does not get published.
Independence. Reviews are written without input from the operator being reviewed. Commercial conversations and editorial work happen in different rooms (sometimes literally), and review content is never previewed by, negotiated with, or modified at the request of, an operator before publication.
Transparency. Readers can see who wrote each review, when it was written, when it was last updated, what testing was done, and how the rating was calculated. The methodology is public, the scoring formula is public, and the affiliate model that funds the site is public.
Currency. Reviews are kept current. Bonus terms, payout speeds and operator behaviour change, sometimes without notice, and a stale review is worse than no review. We re-test on a defined cycle and update or retire content that no longer matches reality.
How a review gets made
The review pipeline has six stages and runs roughly the same way for every operator we cover.
Stage 1: Selection
We do not review every casino indiscriminately. The starting filter is licensing: an operator must hold a current licence from a recognised regulator, with the documentation findable on the regulator's own website. Casinos without verifiable licensing do not enter the review queue and instead appear, where appropriate, on internal blacklists with a published warning. After licensing, we look at audience relevance for Australian players, the operator's complaint history on independent platforms, and whether existing coverage on the site already covers a closely similar product. The selection step is the cheapest place to drop an unworthy review, and we use it.
Stage 2: Testing
The reviewer signs up like any new player would, deposits real money (typical test budget: $50 to $200), runs through the welcome offer flow, plays through a wagering test where the offer permits, requests withdrawals on at least two payment methods, and times every step. The full eight-stage testing protocol is documented separately in How We Test. Test data goes into a shared logbook that the reviewer, fact-checker and editor can all see.
Stage 3: Writing
The same reviewer who tested the casino writes the review. This rule exists because review writing built on second-hand notes is a known failure mode in the industry: it produces text that is plausible but does not reliably match what a real player would experience. By keeping testing and writing inside the same head, we keep the friction details, payment quirks and support-chat texture that are easiest to lose in a hand-off.
Reviews are written to a standard structure (intro, scoring summary, bonus analysis, game catalogue, payments, support, mobile, responsible-gambling assessment, verdict) but the content is not templated. The reviewer is free to expand sections that warrant it, shorten sections that do not, and write in their own voice. We would rather a slightly less symmetrical review that says something useful than a perfectly templated one that says nothing.
Stage 4: Fact-check
Before publication, every review goes to our fact-checker. Their job is to confirm specific numerical and licensing claims against authoritative sources. Specifically: the operator's licence number and status are verified on the regulator's own website; bonus terms (match percentage, maximum bonus, wagering, weighting tables, max bet during bonus, excluded games) are checked against the operator's terms-and-conditions page; the list of game providers is spot-checked against the actual lobby; payment-method limits and fees are verified in the operator's cashier; complaint history is reviewed on the most recent six months of AskGamblers and Casino Guru records.
Where the reviewer's testing diverges from the operator's published terms, we go back to the operator for clarification before publishing. The fact-checker logs every check against a checklist; the log is internal but available for editorial review.
Stage 5: Publication
The review goes live carrying the reviewer's byline (with a link to their author page), the publication date, the rating broken down by criterion, and an indication of when it will next be reviewed. The first published version is the one that stays public; we do not silently rewrite a review after the fact, and any subsequent changes are flagged with an updated date.
Stage 6: Maintenance
Every review is queued for re-testing on a 3-to-6-month cycle. Reviews can be flagged for early re-testing in three circumstances: a tip-off from a reader about changed conditions, a public change announced by the operator (new licence, ownership change, bonus restructure), or a measurable change in complaint volume on independent platforms. Re-tests follow the same protocol as the original test, and updated reviews carry a note explaining what changed since the prior version.
Sourcing standards
We use three tiers of source, and treat them differently.
Primary sources. The operator's own website, the regulator's licensing register, and our own first-hand testing logs. These are the gold standard, and any contested fact in a review must be supported by at least one primary source.
Independent secondary sources. Reputable industry publications, regulator press releases, court documents, formal complaints lodged with arbitration services. These supplement the primary sources, and we cite them where they add useful context.
Tertiary sources. Forum posts, social-media comments, individual player accounts. These can be useful as leads (telling us where to look) but never as standalone evidence for a published claim. A single forum post claiming a casino refuses payouts is a starting point for our own investigation, not a fact we will repeat.
Press releases from operators are treated as marketing material, not journalism. We may quote them, but we do not pass through their language uncritically, and we do not rely on a press release as the sole source for a positive claim about an operator.
Independence from commercial pressure
The site is funded by affiliate commissions, set out in detail in Affiliate Disclosure. The structural risk that funding model creates is the reason for everything in this section.
Commercial conversations with operators (negotiating commission rates, discussing creative assets, handling tracking integrations) happen with a separate point of contact from the editorial team. The reviewer who tests an operator and writes the review does not negotiate the operator's commission with us. The fact-checker does not see the commercial side. The editor reviews content on its merits and is responsible for pulling reviews that fail editorial standards regardless of whether the operator is a partner.
We will not accept a partnership with a precondition that we publish a positive review, give a minimum rating, hide negative findings, or refuse to publish criticism. Several conversations every year end at that point, and we accept the lost revenue rather than the compromise. We do accept partnerships with operators who pass our independent testing at a worthwhile rating, because that is what the model allows.
Operators do not see review drafts before publication. We do not run review text past their PR teams. We do not give them advance notice of negative coverage; the first they see of a review is the public version, the same as readers do. Where an operator wants to dispute a fact after publication, the route is the corrections process below, not a private negotiation.
Corrections and updates
We make mistakes. The procedure for handling them is straightforward and deliberately public.
If a reader, an operator, or our own internal review identifies a factual error in published content, the editorial team reviews the claim within 48 hours. If the claim is substantiated, the content is corrected within a further 48 hours, and a note is appended explaining what was changed and when. The note remains on the article so anyone can see the correction history.
If the correction is non-trivial (it affects a rating, a recommendation, or a key claim like licensing status), the change is also called out at the top of the article for at least 30 days, so returning readers can see what shifted. We do not silently rewrite reviews to make them look like they were always correct.
We do not remove negative content at an operator's request. Where an operator can prove a specific factual error, we correct that error and nothing else. The wider review stands or falls on its testing.
Outdated content is handled differently from incorrect content. A review that no longer matches reality (the operator has shut down, lost its licence, materially changed its bonus structure) is either re-tested or marked as outdated until re-testing happens. We do not delete outdated reviews, because removing the historical record creates its own integrity problem.
Author qualifications
Reviewers writing for JeetCity Casino must have professional iGaming experience of at least three years, must demonstrate working knowledge of the relevant regulatory frameworks, and must be willing to test casinos personally with their own deposits. Reviewers who cannot meet the testing requirement do not write reviews; they may contribute to topical guides or analysis pieces under a separate process.
The senior reviewer and lead author is Sienna Marsh, whose full bio, qualifications and testing record are on her author page. Other contributors are introduced on the site as their first work appears, with the same disclosure of background and credentials.
Anonymous reviews are not published on this site. Every piece of content carries a real-name byline, and readers can hold the named reviewer to account.
Conflicts of interest
Reviewers must disclose any direct or indirect commercial interest in an operator they are testing. A reviewer who has worked for the operator in the previous twelve months cannot write the review. A reviewer with a personal financial stake in the operator (equity, bonuses tied to operator performance, ongoing consulting contract) cannot write the review either. The disclosure obligation runs broader than the prohibition: even where there is no direct conflict, any material connection is logged so that the editor can decide whether re-assignment is appropriate.
How to flag an issue
The fastest way to raise an editorial concern is by emailing [email protected]. For more general feedback or other channels, see the Contact Us page. Specific complaints handled outside the normal feedback flow include disputes about a published claim (handled through the corrections process above), disagreements with a rating (we will explain how the score was calculated and engage with substantive arguments, but the rating itself stands unless the underlying testing was wrong), and accusations of bias (we will examine the work and respond on the substance).