The rules this site holds itself to. They are written down so that breaking them is visible.
Every page of substance carries a named author with a public profile, a background and a contact address. The author of the RollXO review is Jack Wilson. Legal and policy pages are published by the site rather than an individual, and say so.
We do not publish under invented bylines, and we do not attribute a page to a person who did not write it.
Claims are graded by source class before they are allowed on the page. Primary sources - registers, regulators, legislation, the operator's own terms - are the only acceptable basis for a specification. Tracked databases and published terms analyses are acceptable with named attribution and a check date. Competitor reviews, press releases and affiliate briefs are not sources at all.
Where two acceptable sources conflict, we publish both figures and say they conflict. Averaging them produces a number that is true nowhere.
Arithmetic is recomputed at publication rather than inherited. Every derived figure on the review - the deposits needed to max a bonus, the turnover a wagering multiple implies - was calculated, not copied.
The date on the review is the date its figures were last checked against their live sources. It moves when we check. It does not move because a script touched the file, and it does not move to game a freshness signal.
The publication date never changes. If you see a page whose publication date walks forward every quarter, you are looking at an operator of a content pipeline, not a publisher.
If something here is wrong, we would rather fix it than defend it. Corrections go to [email protected] and are handled within 48 hours on editorial issues.
A factual error is corrected in place, and the change is described rather than buried. We do not quietly delete a wrong number and let the page pretend it never said it.
This site earns affiliate commission. The affiliate disclosure sets out exactly how. What that revenue does not buy is a subscore.
The practical test: the RollXO review scores the operator 3.4 out of 5, prints seven specific negatives, states that the advertised bonus cannot be withdrawn within a month, and documents a case where a self-excluded player was readmitted after ten days. All of that sits on a page that earns money when a reader signs up. If the commercial relationship controlled the copy, none of it would be there.
First-person claims are limited to what was actually done. Reading a register, counting contradictions across a search result, reading dispute records and reading terms analyses are things a writer at a desk does, and they are claimed in the first person. Depositing, withdrawing and clocking a payout are not, and are not claimed until they are done.
A gap is named as a gap. Where a question can only be answered by a live cashier - whether PayID appears in the Australian payment list is the current one - the review says the question is open. It does not borrow a plausible answer from a page that guessed.
No claim of investment, easy money or guaranteed profit appears anywhere on this site. Gambling has a negative expected value and the review says so in arithmetic.
Rewrites of other people's reviews. Specifications sourced from affiliate pages. Invented test results. Bylines belonging to people who do not exist. Scores adjusted after the fact to match a commission rate. Content aimed at anyone under 18, or written to make gambling look like a way to make money.
If you find any of it on this site, that is a failure of ours and we want to hear about it.
