Corrections Log
Why this page exists
A review site that never corrects itself is either perfect or hiding things. We are not perfect. This page documents every material change we have made to published content, when we made it, and why.
Publishing this log openly is a deliberate trust signal. The alternative — silent edits — is the norm for affiliate review sites and is exactly the practice that erodes reader trust when noticed. We would rather show our work in real-time.
This page is the public-facing record. The underlying policy that governs how corrections are made is documented in our Editorial Policy.
What counts as what
We distinguish three categories and handle each one differently because each means something different.
Corrections
A correction addresses a factual error in something we published. The error existed at the time of publication, and we got it wrong.
Examples of what trigger a correction:
- An operator’s license number, ownership, or jurisdiction was stated incorrectly
- A withdrawal time, fee, or limit was misreported
- A bonus term, wagering requirement, or eligibility rule was described inaccurately
- A technical claim (e.g., “this contract is audited by X”) was wrong
- A quote was attributed to the wrong person or organization
- Any other factual statement that was incorrect when published
When we correct, we:
- Update the affected content
- Add a dated note on the page identifying what was corrected
- Log the correction on this page
We make corrections regardless of who identifies the error—the reader, the operator, or our own team. The standard is whether the published claim was wrong, not who pointed it out.
Updates
An update reflects a change in the underlying situation since publication. The original content was accurate when published; circumstances have since changed.
Examples of what trigger an update:
- An operator changes ownership
- An operator gains, loses, or changes its license
- An operator modifies its terms, withdrawal process, or supported assets in a way that affects our assessment
- An operator’s verdict moves between Trusted and Not Recommended on re-review
- New evidence emerges that materially affects our published assessment
When we make an update, we:
- Revise the affected content
- Add a dated update note explaining what changed
- Log material updates on this page (minor refreshes are not logged)
Retractions
A retraction applies when a published piece is materially wrong in ways a correction cannot fix—for example, if our testing proved invalid or if the article’s central claims weren’t supported.
Retractions are rare. When we retract:
- We replace the original content with a retraction notice
- The notice explains what was wrong, why we retracted, and what (if anything) we are publishing in its place
- We log the retraction here permanently
- We do not delete retracted content silently or remove it from search engines; the URL continues to serve the retraction notice
What does not appear here
To be clear about scope:
- Typo fixes, formatting changes, and minor copy edits are not logged. The standard is whether the change affects meaning, not whether the page was edited.
- Routine updates to time-sensitive information (e.g., current bonus offers, supported asset lists) on operator review pages are noted with the page’s “Last updated” date but not individually logged here.
- Editorial improvements to writing quality without changing factual claims are not logged.
- Removal of broken outbound links is not logged.
If you believe a change we treated as routine should have been logged as a correction or update, email contact@crypto-casinos.com and we’ll review it.
How to report an error
If you believe we have published something incorrect, contact contact@crypto-casinos.com with:
- The URL of the affected page
- The specific claim you believe is wrong
- The basis for your belief, with sources where applicable
We acknowledge reports within 5 business days and respond substantively once we have completed our review. We correct verified errors regardless of who reports them — readers, operators, competitors, or our own team.
Operators who wish to exercise their right of reply on a review should follow the process in our Editorial Policy and email partners@crypto-casinos.com.
The log
We list entries in reverse chronological order. Each entry states the date, the affected URL, the type (Correction/Update/Retraction), what we changed, and—when it’s a correction or retraction—what was wrong and how we discovered it.
—
### **[YYYY-MM-DD]** — **[CORRECTION / UPDATE / RETRACTION]**
**Affected page:** **[URL or page title]**
**What changed:** **[1-3 sentences describing the specific change. Be concrete: “The review previously stated that Operator X holds a Curaçao license issued in 2021. The actual license was issued in 2022 by a different sub-licensee. The license details have been updated and a link to the current license register added.”]**
**For corrections — what was wrong and how we identified it:** **[1-2 sentences. “An operator complaint flagged the date error; verification against the public license register confirmed the correct date.” Or: “Our own re-review identified that the wagering requirement was misstated.”]**
**Source of report:** **[Reader / Operator right-of-reply / Internal review / Other publication / Anonymous tip — be specific where possible without naming individuals who haven’t consented to be named.]**
—
### **[YYYY-MM-DD]** — **[TYPE]**
**Affected page:** **[URL]**
**What changed:** **[DESCRIPTION]**
**For corrections — what was wrong and how we identified it:** **[DESCRIPTION]**
**Source of report:** **[SOURCE]**
—
**[Continue chronologically. Most recent at the top.]**
—
## Annual summary
At the end of each calendar year, we publish a summary at the top of this page noting the number of corrections, updates, and retractions logged that year, and any patterns we identified. The point of this summary is accountability: a high correction count is not necessarily a bad signal (it can mean our process is catching errors); a stable or zero count without a clear reason is sometimes a worse signal (it can mean we’re not looking).
### **[YEAR]** summary
**[To be added at year-end. Format: “In [YEAR] we logged [N] corrections, [N] material updates, and [N] retractions across the site. The most common source of corrections was [SOURCE]. The most common type of correction was [TYPE — e.g., license details, withdrawal times]. Process improvements made in response: [LIST].]**
—
**Last updated:** **[DATE]**
**Questions about this log:** **[EDITORIAL_CONTACT_EMAIL]**
