Sourcing requirements, the four-stage review process, and our conflict-of-interest policy — the complete methodology behind every guide we publish.
Our mission is straightforward to state and harder to consistently execute: publish gaming-industry research that's accurate, sourced, and free of the commercial incentives that distort so much content in this category. This page is our accountability mechanism — the specific process behind that mission, published in full.
A writer compiles primary sources — published rules, regulatory guidance, audit reports — before drafting begins.
A second team member verifies every factual claim against the underlying source material directly, not the draft's paraphrasing.
An editor reviews structure, clarity, and tone, and holds final sign-off before anything goes live.
Published articles are queued for re-verification on at least a quarterly cycle, with visible update dates.
We source claims from published game rules, regulatory filings and guidance where available, and independently issued audit or certification reports. We do not treat other blogs, forum discussions, or unverified secondhand summaries as primary sources — they may inform what we investigate, but they don't substitute for verification against original material.
When a factual error is identified — through our own re-review or a reader report — we correct it and update the article's “last updated” date visibly. Material corrections that change a conclusion are also noted inline near the relevant section, rather than silently replaced.
No individual on our editorial desk holds a financial stake in any platform we cover. We do not run commission-based affiliate arrangements tied to specific platform outcomes, and we do not accept cash payment, free products, or other incentives in exchange for favorable coverage. This policy extends to guest contributors, who disclose any relevant affiliations before a piece is accepted.
Topics touching real-money gaming, legal status, and financial risk get additional scrutiny before publication. We explicitly avoid content that could reasonably be read as encouraging participation beyond a reader's means, and every strategy-adjacent article is reviewed alongside our Responsible Gaming framework, not as an afterthought appended later.
| Practice | Typical Content Mill | Raja Game |
|---|---|---|
| Fact-checking | Rarely disclosed or absent | Independent second-reviewer process |
| Sourcing | Often paraphrased from other blogs | Primary sources required |
| Corrections | Silent edits, if any | Logged with visible update dates |
| Conflict of interest | Often undisclosed affiliate ties | No commission-based arrangements |
| Review cadence | One-time publication | Quarterly re-verification |
Readers occasionally ask why we don't publish a byline photo for every article, given how much transparency we emphasize elsewhere. The answer is structural: most pieces pass through multiple contributors during drafting, fact-checking, and editing, so a single named byline would understate how the article was actually produced. Our About page covers the team structure in more detail.
This page is itself subject to the same review cycle as our other content — if our process changes meaningfully, this page updates to reflect it, with a visible revision date at the top.
An editor reviews every piece for structure, clarity, and adherence to sourcing standards, and holds final sign-off before publication — no article goes live without this step.
Published game rules, regulatory filings and guidance, and independently issued audit or certification reports — not other blogs, forum posts, or unverified secondhand summaries.
We publish under a collective editorial byline regardless of authorship, since every piece — staff or guest — passes through the same fact-checking and editorial review.
We present the disagreement explicitly rather than picking a side arbitrarily, and note where a topic remains unsettled or jurisdiction-dependent.
The fact-checker's verification against source material takes precedence — a claim that can't be independently verified against a primary source doesn't get published as fact, regardless of writer confidence.
No. Our conflict-of-interest policy extends beyond cash payment to any form of incentive that could reasonably bias coverage.
A factual error affecting a specific claim gets a targeted correction with a visible update note; a broader shift in understanding or significant new information can trigger a fuller rewrite, still logged as an update.
We rotate fact-checking duties within our small team to avoid the same blind spots reviewing every piece, though the same rigor and sourcing standard applies regardless of who's reviewing.
Yes — where regulations are unclear, actively changing, or vary significantly by jurisdiction, we say so explicitly rather than presenting a single answer as universally applicable.
We review any request for a factual basis. Requests based on factual inaccuracy are taken seriously and corrected where verified; requests to remove accurate, unfavorable-but-fair commentary are not accommodated.
Any tooling used for drafting support is disclosed internally and every factual claim still passes through our human fact-checking and editorial review before publication — the sourcing standard doesn't change based on what tools assisted drafting.
We re-verify the affected claim against alternative primary sources, correct or remove it as warranted, and log the change on our News & Updates page with a visible revision date.
Publishing this methodology openly is a deliberate choice — it gives you the tools to hold us accountable to our own stated process, rather than asking you to simply trust that we're doing things right.