There are two problems I have seen with them. First, they are not good at handling false positives. As the poster on Reddit found out, they are slow to respond. Also, they don't seem to have a mechanism to recognize that their scan does a poor job at certain sites. They should have some kind of internal white list of sites that their scan can't handle well, and only let those sites make it to the block list after human review whenever the scan purports to find something.
The second problem is that there are many obvious people gaming the community review system. I saw one reviewer, with a 9/9 reputation rating, that was reviewing thousands of sites a day. I suspect that there were many more shill accounts participating in this.
The second problem is that there are many obvious people
gaming the community review system. I saw one reviewer,
with a 9/9 reputation rating, that was reviewing thousands
of sites a day. I suspect that there were many more shill
accounts participating in this.
Yup. Here are their top 3 reviewers:
* pharmalert: http://user.siteadvisor.com/forums/member.php?u=19138 with 1400 posts per day.
* Nodes: http://user.siteadvisor.com/forums/member.php?u=107161 with 750 posts per day.
* DougW: http://user.siteadvisor.com/forums/member.php?u=1699 with 451 posts per day.
For me this is a pretty solid indicator that their review system is, at best, useless.
The second problem is that there are many obvious people gaming the community review system. I saw one reviewer, with a 9/9 reputation rating, that was reviewing thousands of sites a day. I suspect that there were many more shill accounts participating in this.