Hmm. According to my Rep, I'm doing okay, but someone posted a note that they don't care for the appearance of my sample page. Okay, ya got me - I put zero effort into how nicely my text lines up on the little green sqaures; and my FAQ page has zero formatting. And I cop to scandalous laziness writing the articles on the rest of the placeholder icons. However, this is not a report. It's more like the "notebook" stage of science. That's why I haven't sent it to "review my site". I can always pay some designer $100 to spruce it up for me.
By the way, I am also studying copyright trends. Since its new revision a few months ago, the site is 99% permissive-licensed. (The 1% is my way of covering any goof I may have made.) News stories are starting to appear that lawyers are suing for copyright violations on graphics as well as music and movies. Therefore, my entire page, while exceedingly choppy, is nearly perfectly documented to be permissive use. Here I would give a shout out to the Prelinger Archive which bought Terabytes worth of 60 year old TV commercial footage, and paid for the rights to make it cleanly public domain. Some of my backgrounds are cropped snips of screen shots from those archives to replace formerly copyright-unclear graphics "used in 1999 wild west" style.
I stand by the sudy methodology itself. It's opt-in, gives hosts plenty of chances to escape undue penalties arising from the vagaries of running a business, but yet provides a realtime view of hosts maintaining existence.