Home › Editorial guidelines · v3.2
Editorial guidelines
How we rank casinos. What we cross-reference. How we handle conflicts of interest. Updated 2026-04-12.
How we score
Weighting breakdown
Each casino is scored across 7 categories. Totals are normalized to 10. The weights below are fixed across all reviews.
What we cross-reference
Data sources
-
In-house withdrawal tests
Internal
-
In-house bonus-math sampling
Internal
Disclosure
Conflicts & affiliate model
Affiliate disclosure
We earn commissions when readers sign up at casinos through our outbound links. Commissions are negotiated industry-standard rates and do not vary by ranking position. Operators have no editorial input.
Conflict of interest policy
- Editors do not hold equity in any reviewed operator.
- Sponsored content, when published, is labelled "Sponsored" at the top of the page.
- Affiliate revenue is allocated to operations, not to editorial budgets per-review.
- Editorial team members may not accept gifts, hospitality, or free play credits from operators.
Correction policy
Spotted an error? Email [email protected]. Verified factual corrections get the article updated and timestamped within 48 hours.
Methodology version v3.2, effective 2026-04-12. Material changes are logged in our public Changelog.
BonusGrande exists to help readers compare online casinos and bonuses with clarity instead of hype. These guidelines set out exactly how our pages are researched, scored, fact-checked and corrected — and how we keep commercial relationships from bending the verdict. We publish them so you can hold us to the same standard we hold operators to.
How we research and score a casino
Every review starts with hands-on testing, not a press release. A reviewer registers a real account, completes identity verification, makes a deposit and — wherever the local framework allows — a withdrawal, so we can observe the full journey a reader would face. We then score each site against a fixed set of weighted criteria, applying the same rubric to every operator so results stay comparable.
Sources, fact-checking and independence
Factual claims are tied to primary sources: a regulator's public licence register, the operator's own published terms, official payment-provider documentation and the laws of the country a page is written for. A second editor independently re-checks licence status, bonus terms and any figure before publication, and when a detail cannot be verified we leave it out or flag it plainly rather than guess. On independence: BonusGrande earns commission when readers sign up with some of the operators we list, and we disclose this openly because it is the standard model for comparison sites — but it does not buy a higher rating. Scores are set by the review team against the rubric above; commercial staff have no say in them, an operator cannot pay to move up, edit a verdict or remove a criticism, and reviewers hold no financial stake in the brands they assess.
Corrections, updates and author accountability
Casinos change their terms, payment methods and even their licence status, so a review is only useful if it is kept current. We re-test listed sites on a regular schedule and immediately whenever a material change — such as a licence loss or revised bonus terms — comes to our attention, and each page shows when it was last reviewed. If you spot something inaccurate, tell us through the contact details on our about page: verified errors are corrected promptly and, where the meaning changes, noted transparently. Accountability sits with real people: our content is produced by named editors experienced in iGaming and consumer comparison, not anonymous contributors, and every review carries a visible byline so you can weigh the reviewer's track record on our authors page.
