Editorial policy

This policy explains the minimum standard for content published on SlotsLike. Its purpose is to make factual claims traceable, opinions identifiable and commercial relationships clear.

Effective: 10 July 2026

Accuracy and sourcing

Writers and editors should use primary sources wherever practical. For slot data, that usually means the reviewed game help file or developer documentation. Company ownership and acquisition claims should use official corporate records or announcements. Licensing claims should be checked against the relevant public register and dated.

Secondary sources may provide context, but they should not replace an available primary source for RTP, maximum win, game rules, ownership or licensing. Unsupported superlatives, market-wide popularity claims and promises about winning are not permitted.

Authorship and expertise

Pages should identify the person who wrote or reviewed them when a real editorial record exists. Author biographies must describe verifiable experience and must not claim qualifications, awards, employment or review totals that cannot be evidenced. A byline is not a substitute for accurate sourcing.

Reviews and comparisons

Reviews should state their method and separate observed experience from developer-supplied facts. Comparisons should explain both similarities and material differences. A small demo session cannot prove RTP, hit frequency or the likelihood of winning.

AI-assisted work

Automation may assist with inventory, formatting, checking consistency or preparing a draft. It must not fabricate testing, quotes, credentials, sources, game data or regulatory status. A human editor remains responsible for checking material facts and approving publication. Large batches must be sampled and stopped when validation fails.

Affiliate relationships

SlotsLike may earn commission from marked links. Affiliate compensation must not buy a favourable rating or unsupported recommendation. Offer links should be clearly disclosed and technically labelled as sponsored. Readers should receive the relevant limitations and safer-gambling information before commercial calls to action.

Gambling-safety language

Content must not present gambling as income, encourage chasing losses or imply that RTP, volatility or a system guarantees a result. Age restrictions, spending limits and access to support should be clear. Product information should help a reader understand risk rather than create urgency.

Updates

A visible “last reviewed” date means that the material facts identified on the page were checked. Bulk template or advertising edits do not justify a new factual review date. Where a correction changes RTP, maximum win, ownership, availability or the conclusion of a review, the page should retain a dated change note.

—

Related policies: Editorial policy · Corrections policy · How we rank and review · Responsible gambling · Contact