What the team can help with

The editorial mailbox exists for three broad categories of message, and knowing which one applies to your case helps the team route it correctly from the start.

The first is corrections. Pages across this site carry figures: wagering multipliers, costed bonus values, withdrawal windows and licensing statements. Every one of those is compiled from published sources and checked before publication, but mistakes happen, and sources move. If a number on a page disagrees with the operator’s own published terms, or a statement about licensing no longer matches the current position, the team wants to hear about it. Corrections to factual claims take priority over everything else in the inbox and are usually handled within the standard two working day window.

The second is changes to operator terms. Casinos amend welcome offers, wagering requirements, minimum deposits and payment rails regularly, sometimes without notice. If you have spotted that a term described on one of our pages has changed at the operator’s end, a short note is enough to set a review in motion. The team does not publish figures based on a single reader report alone; the claim is re-verified against the operator’s own terms first. That verification is why a term change can take a few days to appear rather than being patched immediately.

The third is questions about publications: how a calculation on a guide page was built, what an assumption in a model means, why a particular comparison was drawn the way it was, or how the site’s commercial model works. Queries of this kind are answered plainly. The method behind every costed example is stated on the page itself, and if an explanation is missing, that is treated as a gap worth fixing rather than a question to deflect.

One thing the team cannot do is intervene in a dispute between a player and an operator. Complaints about a casino’s handling of your account, a withheld withdrawal or a closed bonus belong with the operator’s own complaints process, and, where the operator holds a UK licence, with the regulator’s escalation route afterwards. The team can point you at the relevant page that explains those routes, but it cannot act on your behalf.

How to write to us

There are two addresses, and choosing the right one keeps your message from sitting in the wrong pile.

For factual corrections, term changes and anything that concerns the accuracy of a published page, write to corrections@reelspinfortune.uk. This mailbox is monitored every working day and is the fastest route to a fix. Most corrections receive a reply within two working days, and the reply will say either that the page has been amended, that the claim has been re-verified and stands, or that more detail is needed to check it.

For editorial questions, feedback about how a guide is written, requests for clarification of a method, or anything about the site’s approach that is not a straightforward factual error, write to editorial@reelspinfortune.uk. This mailbox is read slightly less often than the corrections one, but the two working day target still applies.

Messages are answered in the order they arrive, with corrections given priority. If your message spans both categories, send it to the corrections address and the team will split it internally rather than asking you to resend.

Please do not send promotional pitches, guest post offers or link requests to either address. Mail of that kind is not answered, and the site does not accept sponsored content of any description. The commercial arrangement the site does have is described openly on its own page, and no other form of paid placement exists.

What to attach to a message

A correction that arrives with the right evidence can be actioned the same day it is read. A vague one needs a round trip before anything happens. Three things make a message complete.

First, the URL of the page concerned, copied in full. Site addresses change rarely, but page slugs are specific, and a link removes any ambiguity about which of the many guide pages you mean. If the problem sits in a particular section of a long page, say so in a line.

Second, the exact wording you believe is wrong, quoted as it appears on the page. Screenshots work as well, though a plain text quote is easier to search for and easier to log. The team compares your quote against the published text, so a paraphrase slows things down.

Third, the source that contradicts the published claim, or supports your reading of it. For term changes, that is usually a link to the operator’s own bonus terms page, with the relevant clause quoted. For licensing statements, a link to the relevant register entry is ideal. A correction backed by a primary source carries far more weight than an assertion, and it is the only kind the team can act on, because everything published here is traceable to a source that a reader can check too.

Include your name if you like, though it is not required. An email address is needed so a reply can be sent. Personal details beyond that are unnecessary and should be left out, particularly anything relating to an account you hold with an operator. The team reviews published pages, not individual accounts, and no message should ever contain a password, an account number or a copy of a verification document.

Once a correction is verified and applied, the affected page is updated and the date shown as modified changes accordingly. There is no public corrections log at present, but the reply to your message will confirm exactly what was altered.