This page describes the computations this platform actually runs — not aspirations. Every formula below is executed in SQL you can verify by querying public tables.
Each signed-in member may cast one toggleable vote per claim type on an opportunity. The reliability score uses only two of them as opposing signals:
We publish the Wilson 95% lower bound of the positive proportion:
The lower bound is deliberately conservative: a program voted reliable 8 times out of 10 scores ≈ 49%, not 80%. Small samples cannot look good.
Minimum-sample gate: below 3 opposing votes the score is NULL and the UI displays “insufficient data” instead of a number.
Opportunities discovered by background agents carry a confidence score defined as 1 − payout_anomaly_score, where the anomaly score comes from a structured audit of claims and vendor signals (0 = clean, 1 = certain fraud). Auto-publication requires both: audit verdict pass and anomaly ≤ 0.30. Everything else enters manual review.
Every extracted claim carries exactly one state: official_source, community_report, agent_extracted_unreviewed, moderator_verified, stale, disputed, or removed. Agent-extracted claims are labeled as such until a moderator verifies them — never silently promoted.
Letters move through four visible statuses — waiting_vendor, under_review, resolved, closed_unresponsive — with a 14-day vendor response window before a case is marked unresponsive. Vendors answer through verified Right of Reply; answers appear beside the original letter, never replacing it.
Where ad-network programs are listed, traffic-quality notes distinguish Invalid Traffic per IAB/MRC taxonomy: GIVT (general — known bots, data-center origins) versus SIVT (sophisticated — hijacked devices, fabricated sessions). Programs with unresolved SIVT histories are flagged rather than delisted, because the record itself is the product.
Questions or corrections: legal@emailforums.biz