A reference is only useful if readers can see how it was put together. This page explains where our information comes from, how we score a brand and what happens when sources disagree.
Sources we rely on
We start with primary material: the brand's own archived pages, promotional screens and app listings, public company records and regulatory registers. Independent coverage from established review sites and player feedback platforms comes next, and is used to confirm or question those primary sources rather than replace them.
Handling conflicting information
Casino details change often, so older articles frequently disagree with newer ones. When two credible sources conflict, we present both versions with their context instead of choosing one silently. A good example is the welcome offer, which appeared in several different forms during the brand's life, from a free-spin package with wagering attached to a version paid out as cash. Each version is described with the period and the source it comes from, so an older article that seems to contradict this site can usually be matched to one of them.
Where only one source supports a detail, we say what kind of source it is, for example the brand's own promotional screen or a single independent review, so readers can judge how much weight to give it. Screenshots from the brand's archive are treated as evidence of what was offered when they were captured, but not as proof of how long an offer ran. When a newer source corrects an older one, the page is updated and the earlier figure is kept only if it helps explain why other sites still quote it.
How the pre-closure rating works
We score five areas a customer actually used: games, payments, bonuses, mobile access and support. Each area is rated out of five from documented features, published terms and the pattern of player feedback, and the overall figure is a plain average rounded to one decimal place. Because the brand is closed, the score describes past quality only and is never presented as a recommendation or displayed as review stars in search results.
What we leave out
We do not publish claims we cannot trace to a source, invent test results or describe personal experiences we did not have. If a detail cannot be confirmed, it is either labelled as reported by others or left out altogether.
Keeping pages current
Pages are reviewed whenever a relevant public source changes, and corrections from readers are checked against a source before anything is edited.
