Editorial Policy
This page sets out the editorial standards F7 Casino applies across its reviews, guides and comparison pages. It exists so readers can hold us to a written rule rather than to whatever feels reasonable on a given day. The wider context for who runs the site is on the About page, with the flagship operator review at the F7 Casino homepage. Where this page describes a procedure — review production, fact-checking, corrections, freshness — that procedure runs against every piece of content published on the site.
1. Editorial independence
F7 Casino is funded through affiliate commissions earned when readers click through to an operator and then register there. The full mechanics sit on the Affiliate Disclosure page. Editorially, the rule is brief: a partnership does not purchase a higher rating, and the absence of one does not pull a score down. A consistent rating framework runs identically against every operator that receives a full F7 Casino review. We have scored partner operators at six and below, and scored operators with no commercial relationship at eight and above. Sales, marketing and editorial run as separate workflows; the editorial team holds the final call on every published score.
2. Sources we trust
F7 Casino content draws on four kinds of source, ranked by weight.
- Hands-on testing. Reviews are produced from live accounts on operator platforms, using real deposits and real withdrawal requests. This is the primary source for everything in a review apart from independently verifiable third-party facts.
- Government and regulator records. Public licensing status, corporate ownership filings, entries on the UKGC register, GAMSTOP records plus Gambling Act 2005 citations all sit in this tier. Anything carrying legal weight on F7 Casino traces back here.
- Independent player-community evidence. Long-term reputation across AskGamblers, Casino Guru, Trustpilot, along with Reddit threads and dedicated player forums. Treated as a sanity check on testing results, not as a primary source on its own.
- Operator-supplied material. Press releases, marketing pages, partnership briefing decks. Treated as context, never repeated as if independently confirmed. Whenever a figure in a review traces back to the operator themselves, the review flags it plainly.
3. Fact-checking
Each operator review goes through a four-step fact-check ahead of publication. Step one — the licensing claim is independently verified against the regulator's public register. Step two — bonus arithmetic is rebuilt from scratch using the operator's published terms, and the recomputed total is then put alongside the headline marketing figure; any gap shows up in the review itself. Step three — the named payment methods, the claimed withdrawal speeds and the minimum deposits get checked inside the actual cashier (not the FAQ, which often disagrees with what the cashier actually shows). Step four — the catalogue claims are sampled against specific studios and specific titles to confirm that the lobby really lines up with how the marketing describes it.
Numerical claims that shift frequently — bonus terms, withdrawal limits, minimum deposits — are tagged in our internal tracking and re-checked on the schedule below. If a re-check surfaces a shifted number, the review is updated, the date at the top of the page is bumped, and a small dated note is appended at the foot of the review describing what changed.
4. Quotation, paraphrase and attribution
Direct quotation gets held back for situations where the precise wording carries weight — regulator notices, official terms and conditions, anything pulled out of court documents. Outside that narrow band, paraphrase is the default approach, with the original source named in-line. Marketing copy supplied by operators is rewritten end-to-end in our voice; an operator press release is never republished verbatim as F7 Casino content. Any third-party figure that appears in a review — a Trustpilot rating, a complaint count from AskGamblers, etc. — comes with the source named explicitly plus a working outbound link.
Statistical assertions touching on gambling harm, regulatory enforcement actions, or the overall scale of the UK online casino market draw exclusively from government, academic or peer-reviewed publications. Numbers reported by industry associations get used only after independent corroboration has been found elsewhere.
5. Authorship and AI assistance
Every article on F7 Casino is authored by an identifiable human writer or editorial-team contributor. AI tooling can be brought into narrowly defined parts of the workflow — putting together an early outline, condensing a long source document, running a grammar pass, generating candidate headlines. What AI tools are not permitted to do here is produce the analytical heart of a review (the published score, the strengths-and-weaknesses summary, the comparative judgement) and they are not used to fabricate quotations or made-up testing observations. Where a factual claim has its origin in an AI tool, it goes through independent verification before publication, and the underlying primary source is the one that gets cited rather than the model itself.
6. Corrections and updates
Corrections are handled in three tiers, depending on how serious the error is.
- Minor (typo, broken link, formatting glitch): corrected silently within one business day.
- Substantive (a fact, figure or claim large enough to materially shift a reader's decision): pushed live within five business days, with a dated correction note placed at the foot of the affected page describing exactly what changed and the reasoning behind the change. The pre-correction wording is held in our internal version history but is not republished publicly.
- Material (an error large enough to change the overall verdict, or a regulatory development that touches multiple operators): corrected within two business days, with a prominent banner at the top of the page for at least 30 days, and a notice on a dedicated corrections log reachable from this page.
Readers who believe an F7 Casino page carries an error can flag it through the Contact page. Substantive complaints are logged against the relevant review whether or not the correction itself is made.
7. Freshness
Full operator reviews are revisited end-to-end at least once a year, with the high-velocity data points — welcome bonuses, withdrawal turnaround, supported payment methods — re-tested on a quarterly schedule. Topic guides and the methodological pages get a yearly review pass. The "Last updated" stamp at the top of every page reflects the most recent fact-driven review pass rather than the most recent typo-level housekeeping edit.
8. Conflict of interest
Members of the F7 Casino editorial team are not permitted to hold equity in an operator they are reviewing, take consulting fees from them, or keep personal paid affiliate ties on the side. Where a potential conflict surfaces, the writer in question is moved off that operator and given a different assignment, with the reassignment recorded in our internal tracking. The site-level commercial partnerships set out on the Affiliate Disclosure page are operational arrangements rather than personal ones, and are kept inside a separate workflow that runs in parallel to editorial.
9. Reader safety
F7 Casino covers adult products, and three editorial commitments follow on from that. Commitment one — no page on F7 Casino frames gambling as a path to income, and the consistent framing used across the site is "paid entertainment carrying downside risk". Commitment two — every individual operator review and every comparative table is required to surface links to Responsible Gambling tooling alongside the relevant UK helplines, placed not as a buried footnote but as visible inline content. Commitment three — no F7 Casino page may target its language, imagery, or scenarios at minors, problem gamblers or anyone who has self-excluded. Where an operator's own marketing crosses any of those lines, the F7 Casino review states the breach plainly and the published score reflects it.
10. Complaints, escalation and right of reply
An operator that disagrees with an F7 Casino rating can write into the editorial address with a specific factual challenge supported by evidence. From that point, one of three outcomes plays out. Outcome A — the challenge is verifiably correct: the review gets updated and a correction note is appended. Outcome B — the challenge is partly correct: the verified part of the claim is reflected in the updated review, the rest is left alone, and the reasoning is logged internally. Outcome C — the challenge is incorrect: the review is left untouched and the operator is informed in writing of the outcome. Pre-publication negotiation over scores is something we do not engage in at all.
Any reader with concerns about how F7 Casino has handled editorial conduct can escalate through the Contact page; review-specific complaints get a response inside five business days. Questions tied to privacy and what data we hold are addressed on the Privacy Policy page, whose technical companion is the Cookie Policy page.