How we work
Methodology
Our research is built from primary sources, graded for reliability, dated, and checked before publication. This page explains the hierarchy of sources, the evidence grades we use, and the limits of what we can claim.
Source hierarchy
| Grade | Examples | Used for |
|---|---|---|
| A: primary official | Gambling regulators, statutes, advertising codes, Google Search documentation | Rules, requirements, dates |
| B: primary data | Data we collect with a written method | Measurements (none published yet) |
| C: reputable secondary | Established news organizations, law firm briefings citing sources | Leads and context; we then cite the primary source |
| D: interested parties | Vendor studies, operator releases | Attributed claims only |
| E: unsourced | Forums, uncited figures, AI output without sources | Nothing factual |
Where we rely on a non-official copy of a rule (for example a legal publisher's copy of a state regulation), we say so in the source list.
Before publication
- Draft from a brief that names the market, reader task and required sources.
- Check every quote, number and date against the source, and record the page's last-updated date.
- Open every link and confirm it supports the sentence it sits in.
- Run a separate fact-check pass, AI-assisted and confirmed by the editor.
- Score the page with our content quality framework.
Limits
- Rules change, and documentation can lag behind practice. The official source always prevails.
- Our compliance briefs cover selected markets and selected rules. They are not complete legal analyses.
- We focus on Google for search guidance because its documentation is the most detailed; other search engines and AI services may differ.