Editorial policy

This page sets out how codie.gg is written and how the editorial side stays separate from the commercial one. It is the companion to the scoring method and the affiliate disclosure.

Who writes this

Every review and market page carries a named author with a dated byline, and each author has a profile page listing the work they have actually signed. We do not publish anonymous rankings. The authors are real editorial roles with defined coverage: one editor per market group, so the person writing about Swedish tax is the person who reads Swedish operator terms, not a generalist working from a translation.

Longer pieces carry a second name as reviewer, an editor who checked the piece before it went out. The reviewer's job is partly adversarial: to find the honest con the author might have softened, and to confirm the licence and the facts.

Independence from commercial interests

codie.gg earns commission from operators, and that fact is disclosed on every page. The wall between that and the rankings is absolute: no operator can pay for a position, a higher placement, or a gentler review. The order of every list is set by the six-criterion score and nothing else. An editor who ranks sites has no visibility into what any operator pays, and the commercial side has no input into the writing.

How we handle facts

We state facts we can check and flag the ones we cannot. Licence details are confirmed on the regulator's own register. Payout times are measured by making a real withdrawal, not quoted from a help page. Where a figure changes often, such as a bonus, we describe it as advertised at the time of review rather than presenting it as a permanent fact, and we date every page so you can see how current it is.

If we have not tested something, we say so. We do not claim to have withdrawn from a site we have not withdrawn from, and we do not present a quoted payout time as a measured one.

The honest downside

Every review carries cons as well as pros, and one con is present on effectively every operator we cover: it is not licensed in your country and it sits outside your national self-exclusion scheme. We do not write purely promotional reviews, even for an operator we rate highly, because a review without a downside is an advertisement, and our structural checks will not let a review publish without at least two cons.

Corrections

When we get something wrong, we fix it and we record it. Substantive corrections to a ranking or a factual claim are logged on the change log with a date. If you believe something on the site is inaccurate, the fastest route is to check the operator's own terms and the regulator's register against what we have written; where they disagree with us, we want to know, and we will correct the page.