Contact: reach the people who maintain this site

Corrections — the priority queue, no exceptions. A dated rate that's drifted from the operator's published terms, arithmetic on any page that doesn't reproduce, a payments walkthrough whose steps no longer match the cashier, a broken link, a typo in any of six languages: all of it is exactly what the methodology's accountability section invites, and verified reports ship as fixes with the page's updated date moved. Coverage requests — the roadmap's main input: a market you want explained, a coin guide missing from the payments hub, a comparison worth adding. Recurring requests get prioritised, as the about page's roadmap commits. Methodology challenges — a page whose conclusion doesn't follow from its own evidence is a reportable defect; quote it back at us. Permissions — translation and republication requests under the terms page's licensing section. And responsible-gambling concerns about our own content — the one report category the responsible gambling page ranks above accuracy itself.

Correction reports follow a quality gradient, and the top of it gets same-day fixes. The anatomy of the perfect report: the URL of the page (and language version — a fix in one language gets checked across all six); the exact claim, quoted, so there's no hunting; the evidence — for rate and term drift, the operator's current published page; for arithmetic, your working; for broken workflows, what the cashier or board actually showed; and the date you observed it, because published terms move and timing settles arguments. What slows fixes: vague gestures («the rakeback page is wrong»), screenshots without URLs, and bundled reports mixing five issues across three pages — five small messages beat one omnibus. The same anatomy serves methodology challenges: quote the conclusion, quote the evidence it allegedly doesn't follow from, and the review happens against the published standard rather than against opinions about opinions.

Security reports: if you find something genuinely wrong with the site itself — a way it could be abused, a dependency issue, anything in the vulnerability family — flag the subject line with «SECURITY» and it gets read first and handled quietly until fixed. Good-faith reports are thanked, never threatened; that should go without saying and the industry has taught us to say it anyway. Privacy requests: access or deletion of your own correspondence under the privacy policy — write from the address in question, say which, and confirmation comes back when it's done. Both channels inherit the same honesty the rest of this page runs on: we'll tell you what we did, when, and if something can't be done, why. The inbox is small and the site is focused — which is precisely why messages here reach people who can actually change the thing you're writing about, usually the same week.

Transparency about the pipeline, since asking people to write deserves telling them what happens after they do. Arrival: messages land in the one inbox and get triaged by the subject-line flags — corrections and security first, permissions and requests behind them, misrouted platform issues answered with the redirect table above. Verification: a correction claim gets checked against the operator's current published terms, our own testing notes, or re-run arithmetic — the same evidence standards the methodology applies to the site apply to reports about it, in both directions. Action: accepted fixes ship to the affected page and its five sibling language versions, the updated date moves, and the reporter gets told what changed; declined reports get the reasoning, not a form letter. Closure: threads stay until resolved, then live under the privacy policy's retention terms — deletable on request, from the address that wrote them. Aggregation: recurring themes — the same confusion arriving from different readers — become roadmap items, because a question asked five times is a page the site is missing. The inbox, run this way, is less a support channel than the site's external quality department — and the readers who use it well are, functionally, contributors.