I actually did, of course. I agree that both look more or less the same.
But try to think about it from your point of view, just for a few moments:
Unless we have 100% certainty that the user review is fake, we won't reject it. What would you send to the players, and to which one? Further, what would be the reason for rejection?
"Dear player, I'm sorry for rejecting your review, but it almost looks the same as the other one; hence, I'm now rejecting yours."
I'm not trying to look smart; this is our daily user review activity. I just reject someone's review because I feel it's a good decision. I need to be 100% certain; frankly, players are not obliged to explain their expressions to us.
Do you know what happens quite often? A player takes the previous user reviews as a kind of prescription, especially if he shares the same or similar experience.
Maybe I lost the context, but I can assure you that there is not a single paid feature or rating presented on the site. Maybe you can help me with that?
We traded easily to get wealth for fairness and dignity. You have no idea how much money we are offered daily to alter even the slightest value. Of course, we don't do that.
The gambling world is not just a black-or-white place, and I can assure you that our efforts to keep the user rating as clean as possible are almost unmatched. Here comes the decision to keep the user rating completely out of the safety index calculation. User reviews are mostly unproven, meaning they are less reliable. On the other hand, reviews fill up the gap between aspects we count among worth calculation and users' experience, which we can evaluate and hence can't be calculated and used.
There is no link between the affiliate part of this project and any ratings. I'm going to share a secret with you simply because I take you for a reasonable and direct person: there are no "review sites"; all of them are affiliate sites. But it does not necessarily mean a bad thing.
I'd say it always depends on how you approach players and how transparent and willing to support fairness you are.
Of course, we are not perfect, but everyone here is a hard-working, dedicated person, and as a team, we aim to create a more suitable environment for a pastime called gambling.
"So let's this .. I run a casino. It has a bad rating here. I open a new casino, identical to the one with a bad rating, and it receives a positive rating. How? Shouldn't the rating reflect the risk factor? I'm all for giving people a chance, but when an operator with a shady reputation decides to open a new casino, I believe the rating should take into account their history."
We do that. Immediately upon finding the proven connection. If you miss this information, it probably means we're lacking the proof. (https://casinoguru-en.com/our-casino-reviews#related-casinos)

"Few people read the terms and conditions (which they SHOULD), even less read the footer of a casino homepage to find out the operator and licensing information.
Even here, visitors have to click "read more" to find out who the operator of any given casino is."
You may be right. Believe it or not, for this, we have a team called the UX Team. Sadly, the latest tests and the fact that most players use mobile devices to access our site limits the space available for important information significantly. May change the page in the future.
"I don't pretend to know all the behind the scenes dealings, but I can spot a paid advertisement when I see one."
Well, which? There are none.
"My review of BetMaximus was rejected for warning players to be careful. At least that's the way I understand it.
I come here try and help my fellow players avoid crappy situations where they don't get paid. Most of my knowledge is from first hand experience playing at probably over 100 different casinos at this point."
No, the reason was quite simple: "Hello and thank you for your review. Frankly, I'm forced to reject it. Please review just one casino at a time, not the whole group. You can always write another genuine review on the other casino as well, just keep those reviews separated as those casinos are separated as well. Thank you for your understanding."
"Licensing and operators are things that should be discussed on a site like this. I've said that before and I'll say it again.
Casino Guru was started to educate players and promote transparency and positive casino experiences. At least that's what I thought, anyway.
More and more, the lines separating a paid advertisement from an actual review get crossed, transparency gets clouded, and finding REAL information gets increasingly difficult."
Well, we're offering a neutral space for such debates. Browse this thread if you like 👈 Just don't expect administrators to provide legal advice; we deal with fairness instead of law.
The law is very different across the globe, yet a fair approach is international and easy to maintain.