Every review on Rand Casinos says near its top that it carries no score, and the link beside it leads here. This page sets out the method (what the editorial team reads, what it has not done, how the lists are built and how the site is paid), so that a reader can weigh a review by the way it was made.
The essential point is brief. Nobody on the editorial team has tested, played, deposited or withdrawn at the operators listed here for this site, which is why the reviews carry no rating and no stars, the pages no review markup with a score, and every statement in them comes from a document that the page names, most of them open to any reader (the registers, the operators' own terms, the regulators' notices).
What we read before writing a review
The first document is the licence, read in the register of the authority that issued it, not in the "seal" on the operator's page (an image anyone can copy). We search the register under the name it uses, the company's or the "trading name" as filed, and an empty result proves nothing until the full list of licensees has been read and the holding company searched too.
A licence also has a scope, since an authority authorises activities and not brands in bulk (a company may hold a licence for "remote casino" games and none for bingo). Some registers print no number at all: the Kahnawake Gaming Commission's list of "permit holders" pairs each company with its domains, so the card of such a brand names the commission and the company, and adds a number only where the operator's own terms or footer print one.
Then come the company and its group (who holds the licence, who owns it, which sister brands share its terms and platform). The terms on the operator's own site are read in the clauses that decide what a player takes home: the "pending period" (the interval in which a requested withdrawal waits and can still be cancelled), the identity checks called "KYC" (know your customer) and the weekly or monthly limits, under which a player who wins $7,500 at a casino paying $2,500 a week receives three payments, the last two weeks after the first! For a bonus, the clauses that matter are the "wagering" (the bets required before it can be withdrawn) and the "max bet" allowed while it is active.
The platform (the software a casino runs on, often shared by a whole group) and the studios whose games it carries are read on the same pages, with the complaints route up to the regulator or the "ADR" body (alternative dispute resolution) named in the terms. Finally, we follow every affiliate link to the domain where it lands, because a link can lead to a brand or a market other than the one it names; the licence to read is the one of the "landing domain".
What we have not done, and why there is no score
A row of stars tells a reader that someone has compared playing at one casino with playing at another, which needs accounts, deposits and withdrawals. None of it was done for this site.
In our view a score built on documents alone would only translate the terms into a number, with weights picked by whoever picked the number, and coming from a site that the operators pay it would borrow an authority no test had earned.
For the same reason the pages carry no "Review" or "AggregateRating" markup (the "structured data" that lets a search engine print stars beside a result). The reviews keep to what the licence, the group and the terms show: less colourful than a verdict and, we consider, more useful before a first deposit.
Why the cards show the licence and not the offer
The cards on our lists show the regulatory frame of each operator, starting with its licence, and leave out the amount of the welcome offer. Offers change with the reader's country and sometimes from one day to the next, the affiliate panels from which an amount would be copied are not reliably kept up to date, and a site living on the operators' commissions has no business printing a figure it cannot stand behind.
The other reason is arithmetic. An amount says little without its four conditions (the minimum deposit, the wagering, the term and the share that can be withdrawn). The same headline can hide very different work: a player who deposits $250 and receives a "match" of $250 must place $5,000 in bets if the wagering is twenty times the bonus, and $20,000 if it is forty times deposit and bonus together, four times as much for two offers looking identical on a card!
How the lists are ordered
The order starts from the "regulatory frame", a criterion that a reader can verify without opening an account: the authority behind the licence, the register in which it can be read and the body to which a player can turn after a refused withdrawal (the licences page describes each authority). Within the same frame the group and the platform come next, and the size of a bonus or of a commission plays no part.
Our directory groups every operator by the authority behind its licence, from the strongest oversight to the weakest. Its last group gathers operators whose licence we could not confirm on their own pages or in a register, listed because the site works with them and they accept players from many countries, and the section says plainly what a player gives up with them (a regulator to complain to).
How the commission is paid
The operators pay the site (whose owner is named on the about page) through their affiliate programmes when a reader who arrived through one of its links opens an account, sometimes only after a first deposit. The commission is then a fixed sum per new depositing player (a "CPA", cost per acquisition), a share of the "net revenue" that the operator earns from that player over time (a "revenue share"), or a mix of the two.
A revenue share means that the site earns more when a referred player loses more, and we would rather you knew it than guessed it. It is also why the commission stays out of the order; an agreement with a programme is the condition for an operator to appear on our lists, while its place depends on the frame, and no operator can buy a higher position or a gentler account of its terms.
Updates and corrections
We read the licences on the cards in October 2026, when the site was rebuilt, in the registers or, where a register prints no number, in the operators' own footers and terms, and revisions follow no fixed calendar. A page is revised when something it reports changes (a licence, an owner, a term that decides what a player can withdraw), and each page shows the month of its last revision.
If you find a licence, a company or a term that no longer matches the register or the operator's page, the contact page is the place to say so, with the address of the source; we read it, correct the page if the source confirms the error and change the date.
Questions
Why do the reviews on Rand Casinos have no rating?
Because a rating needs a direct test of play, deposits and withdrawals, which nobody on the editorial team has carried out at the operators for this site; the reviews describe the licence, the group and the published terms instead.
Has the editorial team played at the casinos it reviews?
No, not for this site: the reviews rest on the regulators' registers, on the terms the operators publish and on the rules of the games, and they say so where it matters.
How are the casinos on the lists ordered?
By regulatory frame first (the authority behind the licence and the register where it can be checked), then by group and platform, and neither the bonus nor the commission counts.
How can a mistake in a review be reported?
Through the contact page, with the source that shows the error (the register entry or the operator's terms page); the page is corrected once the source confirms it.