Reaching the desk, and what it can act on
Write to [email protected]. Name the page you are writing about and, where the message concerns a figure, attach the manufacturer's own link for the title in question. That attachment is the difference between something we can verify over a coffee and something that needs a week of correspondence before anyone can even establish what is being claimed.
There is no form here, on purpose
Contact forms in this industry are lead-capture instruments wearing a helpful expression. They ask for a province, a date of birth, sometimes a telephone number, before they will accept a question about a paytable - none of which is required to answer a question about a paytable. We would rather not hold any of it, so we do not collect it. An email address is what an email needs.
What a message can actually change
This is a small operation covering Starlight Princess 1000 and four comparison machines. The things it can genuinely act on are narrow, and listing them saves somebody an evening writing to the wrong place:
- A figure that contradicts the manufacturer. The most valuable message this address receives. Send the studio link and it gets checked against what is live here.
- A catalogue page that has moved since our reading. Each review carries the date it was read. Studios revise pages, and we would rather learn it from a reader than from a competitor.
- A question about how something was concluded. Why a mark landed where it did, what a session note is actually claiming, why a cell is empty. Our review method answers most of these, but not all of them.
- A machine you want covered. Especially another build in this family, or another release running the same pay-anywhere multiplier engine.
- A preview that will not load. Frames break. We would rather hear about it the same week than discover it in a traffic report next quarter.
- Anything factual elsewhere on the site - a regulator's name, a provincial detail, a payment description. Corrections get published; we do not defend a sentence because we wrote it.
The correction we receive most, and why it does not stick
Readers write regularly to report that our maximum win for Starlight Princess 1000 is missing and that the figure is well known. The figure is not well known; it is widely repeated, which is a different property. Pragmatic Play states no ceiling for this title on its own catalogue page, and every confident number in circulation traces back to a review site rather than to the people who built the machine. The same is true of Buffalo King Megaways.
So the empty cell stays, and it stays with an explanation attached rather than as an oversight. If the studio publishes a ceiling, send the link and it goes up the same day with a note recording when it appeared. Until then the honest answer is a blank, and our RTP explained page sets out why an absence is more useful to a reader than a borrowed decimal point.
What happens to a correction after you send it
No ticket queue, no automated acknowledgement, so it is worth describing the actual sequence rather than implying a system handles it:
- The person who wrote the review reads it, usually within a couple of working days.
- We open the manufacturer's page ourselves rather than relying on your summary of it, and compare it line by line against what is published here.
- Where the studio contradicts us, the page changes and the reading date is updated. If the figure was one a reader might have acted on, the change is noted rather than absorbed quietly.
- Where the studio supports what we already had, you get an explanation and the link, not a brush-off. Somebody who has found the same wrong number on four other sites is owed an account of where those four got it.
- Either way there is a reply. A correction is not left unanswered because answering it was inconvenient.
What this desk cannot do, and who can
We hold no accounts and see no transactions. If your question involves money currently sitting in somebody else's system, there is nothing here that can reach it. This is the honest redirection list.
| The situation | Where it belongs | Why not here |
|---|---|---|
| A payout has stalled or been refused | The operator, then whichever regulator licensed it | No account of yours is visible to us |
| Promotional credit was voided or a term applied unexpectedly | The operator, quoting the wording you were shown at the time | Those terms are written and enforced by them |
| An account is frozen or documents were rejected | The operator's verification team | Identity checking is a regulated operator function |
| Which sites may legally take your bet | Your provincial regulator, with our rules by province as orientation | Their register is current; our summary is a summary |
| The percentage running at one particular casino | The rules screen inside that game, at that site | Operators licence different builds and we cannot see which |
| Playing has stopped being enjoyable | ConnexOntario or the equivalent service in your province | They are free, confidential and trained for it - we are none of those |
The last row is not filler. If the reason you are writing to a slot review site is that something has got away from you, please use the helpline linked at the foot of this page instead of this address. It costs nothing and it is available across the country.
The rule that governs every dispute
On any question of fact about a machine, the company that built the machine is the authority and we are not. If our page and the studio's page disagree, ours is the one that changes. That is not humility, it is just where the information actually comes from.
How quickly you hear back
Usually inside a couple of working days. A correction arriving with a manufacturer link is fastest, because it can be verified and published without anybody having to establish the claim first. Longer questions about method take a little more.
Where your message goes
Into an inbox, and then into a reply. Correspondents are not added to any list, addresses are never handed to an operator, and a question about a paytable is not treated as permission to market anything at you later.
Four lines that make a correction easy
Most corrections reaching us are right in substance and hard to verify in practice, almost always because the message names a number without naming its origin. This is the whole format:
- Which page, by its address on this site.
- The exact figure or sentence you believe is wrong, quoted rather than paraphrased.
- What it ought to say.
- The manufacturer's link showing it. This is the one that matters - a competitor's review is not a source, and neither is a photograph of a lobby thumbnail.
Disagreeing with a mark is a different sort of message
Both kinds are welcome and they are handled differently. A specification is a fact and it is either right or wrong. A mark out of ten is an opinion, published as an opinion, and explained on the method page. If you think one is harsh or generous, say which part of the reasoning you reject - the trigger condition, the missing ceiling, whether the quiet stretches buy anything - and it may well move the next revision. What will not move it is a studio asking nicely, and neither will volume of complaint.
Anything broken on the site itself
Same address for anything that does not work: a preview refusing to load, a table overflowing on a phone, a link going nowhere, text that is unreadable at your settings. Name the page, the device and the browser and it gets fixed. A review site that falls apart on the handset most people actually use is failing at its only job, and we would much rather hear it from a reader than deduce it from an analytics chart six months later.
Studios, operators, and the mail that gets deleted
A game studio correcting a specification or flagging a revised figure is exactly what this address exists for, and that kind of message is acted on quickly.
What is not entertained: payment to move a mark, payment to remove a drawback from a list, payment to soften the paragraph about offshore licensing, or a request to describe a promotion in terms we have not verified. Some links here are affiliate links and we are paid when a reader registers through one, which is disclosed on every page and explained on who we are. That relationship buys a link and reaches nothing in the specification block or the score. Guest-post and link-insertion pitches are deleted without a reply.
Who is at the other end
Aaron Whitfield - slot analyst - 6 years testing multiplier and tumble engines. No editorial team behind the name, no rotating freelancers, no outsourced content desk. The person who read the manufacturer's page, ran the logged session and wrote the verdict is the person who answers the mail, which is the main reason a correction here can be checked and published in a day instead of being routed through three people who have never opened the game.
Worth checking the site first
A fair share of what reaches this desk is already answered somewhere here, and finding it is quicker than waiting on a reply. Questions about what a figure means are covered on RTP explained and slot volatility. Questions about where you are permitted to play belong on rules by province, which carries the regulators and the ages. Questions about a specific machine are answered on its own review, each of which links the manufacturer page it was built from. And if the question is whether a game suits you at all, every preview is gathered on the free slots page and none of them asks for an account.