A thing that I find problematic with review sites is that they tend to sort of check for things like whether all the content is downloadable, but they don't particularly look at the content. This is especially problematic on sites where they will rate the content or content resolution. (Live Reviews does not have this sort of number system, so this does not apply there. Live Reviews has a really nice format.) A lot of review sites only look at video and not photos. And a lot of review sites assume that whatever it says in the tour is true and will accordingly not mention something unless a site toots its own horn or will repeat something because it is in the tour without that something being, ya know, true. For example, there are a couple sites in my niche where their tours claim exclusivity or regular updates, when their content is hideously overexposed nonexclusive or they have
never updated, not even one update ever.
Some programs have really dishonest tours where they make claims which are wholly false. Some programs have tours which do not do their quality content justice. And everywhere in between. The whole point of the review site is to tear the tour off and tell surfers what they really get on the inside. I had never watched the Live Reviews videos before and, having just done so,
to the fact that it gives the surfer an idea of what to expect.
So many review sites will ask me for SpookyCash site passes and then write reviews where it is obvious they barely looked at the inside and their review gives the surfer pretty flawed data. Most of the review sites have niche rankings where a site which has almost never updated can rank higher than one which has hundreds of updates.