Let me try: This looks way too cheap to be able to afford good enough reviewers to be worth using; if someone is good enough to be able to pick up a new codebase and usefully review changes that quickly, they'd get a better paying job.
I've read a bunch of the reviews and they seem kinda sketchy - no one will say how much they actually make in an hour and it's a lot of general "no trust us it's good". I can't find anyone saying "I'm making X per hour reviewing Y", if they pay over $30/hr I'm interested but really for less.
The pricing on the site is also super confusing - it's $200 for one hour of reviewing, but $700 for a month? In a typical month at my job I'm doing way more than 3.5 hours of review and also doing a bunch of other stuff on the side. Then if the $700 rate is supposed to be ~120 hours then that's only $5.83/hr which isn't even minimum wage where I am. It is however on par with a lot of gig-work jobs, which makes this even more concerning.
If anyone can say what they made I think that would do a lot to quell all the people that don't trust this. I'm also sure some people must have had a bad experience on the site and I haven't seen that yet which is suspicious.
If anyone from the site happens to see this then I think you should add a breakdown of the percentage of pay going to the reviewers, or just some examples like "For C++ you can expect $40-30/hr, JS is $35-25/hr, etc"
This is always the stat I want from gig-work jobs and never the one they want to show. For example Uber will often tout paying upwards of $25-30/hr, but the actual average is closer to $11/hr, which is below minimum wage in many places, doesn't include any benefits/sick days/etc, and also doesn't include expenses from car insurance/gas/maintenance.
I'd really appreciate if all companies were required to report some basics stats on pay - total employees, min/max, average, and mean would be great
