three years of cloned site threads, summarised so you do not have to read them
three years of cloned site threads, summarised so you do not have to read them. Not a hot take, just something I have not seen said plainly here. Cloned storefronts copy assets, layout and testimonial text. What they cannot easily copy is a batch-specific document that ties to a lot you can then have tested…
Right, and the group-buy structure is the underrated risk here. One person holds everything and there is no recourse designed in.
Removed — names an individual. That rule has no exceptions here, including when the account turns out to be accurate.
Yes. The thin-evidence names in the directory are thin because nobody has anything on them, which is a different statement from a warning.
Correction: that domain is one character different from the one you posted, which is rather the point of this thread.
a domain registered last month with a decade of testimonials is the whole tell
Right, and the group-buy structure is the underrated risk here.
This is the check that catches most of it, and it takes under a minute.
[deleted]
That is a report count, not a test count, and it changes how thin the evidence base actually is.