Editorial Policy

The site carries no sponsored content in the classic advertorial sense: there are no paid articles, no paid placements inside articles and no paid amendments to existing articles. The only commercial relationship we have with any operator, Novibet included, is the affiliate arrangement described on the advertising disclosure page — a flat revenue share on players who follow our outbound links. Nothing about that arrangement is contingent on how favourably we write about the operator, and no operator receives copy approval, previews, embargoes or veto rights over anything we publish. If an operator asks us to change a claim, we treat the request as we would treat a reader tip: we verify it against source data and either amend the page, add a clarification or refuse.

The two-week publishing cycle described on the team page also governs updates. On a scheduled cycle we retest deposits, withdrawals, promo codes and app builds and rewrite the corresponding pages. Between cycles we run a change monitor against Novibet's terms and offer pages: any change larger than a spelling correction triggers an immediate revisit of the affected articles. Twice a year — normally in January and July — we run a full end-to-end audit of every claim on the site, top to bottom, and mark each article with a fresh timestamp when the audit is complete. Older articles that are still accurate keep their older date rather than being back-dated, so readers can see the actual age of the underlying research.

Three principles govern every editorial decision. Accuracy comes first: we would rather leave a section blank than fill it with a plausible-sounding guess. Independence comes second: we do not accept edits, additions or omissions from any commercial partner, and we make that constraint explicit at the start of every partnership discussion. Reader interest comes third: when there is a genuine tension between what is comfortable for an operator and what is useful for a reader — a bonus that fails wagering, a withdrawal that stalls at KYC, an app that crashes on mid-tier Android — we tell the reader. The order of the three principles is fixed.

Fact-checking is a two-stage process. Stage one, at draft time: the writer inserts a hidden source note next to every numeric claim, either linking to the operator's page or referencing an internal test log. Stage two, before publication: the fact-checker re-verifies every source note against fresh data, not against the writer's screenshot, and flags anything that no longer matches. Anything that cannot be verified is either removed or clearly marked as an estimate with the reason. After publication we run a weekly link-and-figure check across the whole site — an automated crawl that flags any page whose numbers drift outside a tolerance band relative to Novibet's current published values. Where an operator changes a term mid-cycle — a common example is a wagering multiplier moving from 35x to 40x — the crawl catches the delta and opens a ticket against the responsible editor before a reader sees the outdated number. That is the difference between a site that stays right by accident and one that stays right by design. Corrections after publication follow a fixed template: a dated note at the top of the article, the old value struck through inline and the new value replacing it, with a short explanation of why the previous version was wrong. We do not silently amend numbers; when a reader points out a mistake, we would rather the correction be visible than the error be invisible. The correction log for the whole site is kept in a public change history that any reader can walk through page by page. Anonymous or unverifiable tips are noted but never used as a primary source: if the only evidence for a claim is a message from someone who declined to identify themselves, the claim does not go on the page. Finally, when Novibet's own published terms disagree with our test results — a common example is a payment method listed as supported but silently disabled at the cashier — we publish both readings, mark the discrepancy clearly and lead with what the reader will actually experience, not with what the operator would like them to experience.