Editorial Policy

theMrQ is an independent informational guide covering MrQ, the UK casino, slots and bingo brand. Accuracy is more important to us than production, and it is better for us to produce less but accurate content than an enormous set of guides which we cannot support.

As the gambling offers and their terms may change frequently and without any prior notice from the gambling operator, we regard every statement of fact as something which should be verified before its publication and not as something permanent. The document describes how we verify the information and what actions we take if the facts are incorrect. It builds on what our About page already states: that our facts come from MrQ's own published pages and terms, or from the Gambling Commission's public register, and goes further into the actual mechanics behind that.

Our Editorial Principles

Accuracy

We verify important facts before anything is published, rather than assuming a figure is still correct because it was correct when we last checked. We avoid repeating claims found on competing affiliate sites without checking them ourselves, since errors can spread quickly once one site copies another. Numbers, offers, RTPs, deposit requirements and restrictions all get rechecked at review, not just at initial publication.

Primary Sources First

We prioritise original sources over other guides, including our competitors' content. If a claim can be traced back to MrQ's own pages or a relevant regulator, that's where we go, rather than relying on how someone else has already summarised it.

Editorial Independence

Affiliate commission doesn't buy positive coverage anywhere on this site. Commercial relationships don't determine our conclusions, and genuine disadvantages of an offer or feature get reported alongside its benefits rather than left out. Our Terms page already states that commission doesn't determine what gets published, and this policy is where we explain what that actually looks like in practice.

Transparency

We clearly identify this site as independent rather than letting that fact stay ambiguous. Authors and reviewers are named where possible, update dates are displayed on guides, and material corrections are explained rather than made silently.

Player Safety

We never present gambling as a form of income, and we never guarantee winnings of any kind. Safer-gambling context is included where it's genuinely relevant to a topic, not treated as an afterthought bolted onto the bottom of a page.

The Sources We Use

Different types of claims call for different sources, so we follow a structured approach rather than treating every source as equally authoritative.

MrQ Official Sources

Used for welcome offers, free spins, wagering conditions, minimum deposits, minimum withdrawals, game availability, RTP figures, general promotions, app availability, and account conditions. These are things only MrQ itself can authoritatively confirm.

UK Gambling Commission

Used for licence status, operator details, regulatory requirements, safer-gambling rules, and public enforcement information. Regulatory facts need a regulatory source, not the operator's own description of its compliance.

ASA and CAP

Used where relevant for promotional wording, significant bonus conditions, and gambling marketing standards, particularly when we're assessing whether a specific promotional claim is accurately described.

Safer Gambling Sources

Used for player protection and support content specifically: the Gambling Commission, GamCare, GAMSTOP, and NHS resources where appropriate.

This structured approach is stronger than relying on MrQ and the UKGC alone for every type of claim, since some questions genuinely need a different kind of authority to answer properly.

Sources We Do Not Rely on as Primary Evidence

We don't normally treat the following as authoritative for factual claims: competing affiliate sites, copied casino reviews, forum posts, social media content, AI-generated summaries, or search engine snippets.

These may prove helpful in discovering something that is worth researching about, something new that we have not come across yet, something that needs to be investigated, but they are not taken as conclusive sources of information for any fact at all. If something originates from one of these sources, we trace it back to a primary source before publishing it as fact.

How We Research a MrQ Guide

Our process for building or updating a guide follows a consistent path:

1. Step 1: Define the user's question. We start from what a reader actually wants to know, not from a keyword or a template.
2. Step 2: Find the relevant MrQ source. This means going directly to MrQ's own pages rather than starting from existing coverage elsewhere.
3. Step 3: Check regulatory sources when necessary. Where a claim touches on licensing or compliance, we check the appropriate regulator directly.
4. Step 4: Verify important figures and conditions. Deposit amounts, spin values, expiry periods and similar details get confirmed rather than estimated.
5. Step 5: Draft the guide. Writing happens based on verified research, not the other way around.
6. Step 6: Human editorial review. A person checks the draft against the sources gathered before it's approved.
7. Step 7: Publish with a reviewed date. Every guide carries a visible date so readers can judge how current it is.

How We Check Promotions and Bonus Information

Promotional content gets particular attention on this site, since MrQ's offers are central to why a lot of readers visit in the first place. When creating or revising any promotional articles, we check the following information before releasing it: the sum to deposit, the number of spins offered, the value of a single spin, the game required for qualification, the wagering requirements, the maximum allowed winnings (if a cap is applied), qualifications, expiration period, geographic limitations, and whether a promo code is needed at all.

It is not acceptable to copy promotional information from an old article without checking the current terms first. Offers change often enough that yesterday's figures can be wrong today, and we treat that as a real risk rather than a hypothetical one.

How Often We Review Content

Different content types need different review schedules, since some information goes stale far faster than others.

We're publishing these specific intervals because we intend to actually follow them, not as an aspirational target. If our review capacity changes, we'll update this table to reflect what we can genuinely maintain, rather than leave a commitment in place we're not keeping.

Published, Updated and Last Checked Dates

Every guide on this site aims to show three things: a publication date, a last-checked date, and where possible, who reviewed it.

When a substantial fact changes, we add a note directly on the page explaining what changed, for example: Updated because MrQ changed its current promotion. This is considerably more transparent than quietly replacing a number and moving on without any record of the change.

Our Corrections Policy

Our Contact page already allows readers to report corrections, and states that reported claims are checked against MrQ or the relevant public source. This section turns that into a formal, repeatable process.

1. A reader identifies an error and reports it.
2. Our editorial team checks the claim against the relevant primary source.
3. Incorrect information is corrected once verified.
4. The page's review date is updated to reflect the change.
5. Material errors receive a visible correction note explaining what was fixed.

For example: Correction: This page was updated on [date] after MrQ changed the qualifying terms of its welcome offer.

How We Handle Conflicting Information

Sometimes sources disagree with each other. MrQ's general marketing page might describe something one way while its actual terms specify something more precise, or an old promotional page might remain indexed and visible long after the offer it describes has actually ended.

Our approach in these situations follows a consistent order. We prefer the current, legally operative terms over general marketing language. We check the timestamp or publication date on any source we're relying on. Where genuine uncertainty remains, we contact MrQ directly or dig further rather than guessing, and if we still can't resolve something with confidence, we explain that uncertainty in the content itself rather than presenting a guess as settled fact.

Affiliate Relationships

theMrQ may earn a commission when readers visit MrQ through links on this site. Users don't pay anything extra because of this, and it doesn't change the terms MrQ itself offers.

Affiliate relationships don't determine our factual conclusions. Negative findings, whether that's a limitation in a promotion, a delay in withdrawals, or any other genuine drawback, remain published regardless of any commercial relationship tied to that page. For the full detail on how this affiliate relationship works, see our Terms of Service page.

Our Use of AI and Editorial Tools

AI and other software tools may assist with organisation, editing, or research discovery as part of our production process. Important gambling claims are checked against original sources regardless of how a draft was initially put together.

Final responsibility for what's published rests with a human editor, and AI output isn't treated as an authoritative source in its own right. This reflects our actual workflow rather than a general statement about AI policy, and it's worth being direct about it, since we think readers deserve to understand how content on this site actually gets made.

Who Is Responsible for Our Content?

Content on this site passes through several roles: writers who research and draft guides, researchers who track down primary sources, and reviewers who check accuracy before publication. Final editorial responsibility sits with a named editor for each piece.

Report an Error

If you've spotted something on this site that looks wrong, outdated, or unclear, we want to know about it.