It's indistinguishable from what a pennies-per-paragraph SEO contractor might write, just excerpting and summarizing arbitrary reviews from other sources, chiefly as crawler-fodder.
It might be a wise synthesis of key points from many other reviews... but it'd take a while to earn that reputation as a trusted voice. In the meantime, its design is not giving me signals of reliability, though I can see it has those aspirations (from its 'about' page).
If it were signed copy, more clearly dated, with some quantitative indicators they'd done deeper research, it'd come closer to impressive for me. But, then the source sites might object about the quantity of material excepted.
How valuable is a review-of-reviews, by an unnamed someone who hasn't themselves ever tried the product?
I could believe that done right the review-of-reviews approach could theoretically provide some value. But it veers so close to pay-for-keyword-stuffed-article index-chaffing behavior my presumption starts out against it.
It might be a wise synthesis of key points from many other reviews... but it'd take a while to earn that reputation as a trusted voice. In the meantime, its design is not giving me signals of reliability, though I can see it has those aspirations (from its 'about' page).
If it were signed copy, more clearly dated, with some quantitative indicators they'd done deeper research, it'd come closer to impressive for me. But, then the source sites might object about the quantity of material excepted.
How valuable is a review-of-reviews, by an unnamed someone who hasn't themselves ever tried the product?
I could believe that done right the review-of-reviews approach could theoretically provide some value. But it veers so close to pay-for-keyword-stuffed-article index-chaffing behavior my presumption starts out against it.