People have readily identified this issue, whicb is why you have all sorts of ‘objective reviewers’ that disclose exactly what kickbacks they are getting if any, and sites like wirecutter, consumer reports, america test kitchen, etc. that also aim to provide fairly objective reviews with clarity on how and what they tested. I’m like you and obsessively research any purchase, but there are a few things to note about that. As you move up the scale of time spent researching, you are seeing fewer and fewer people doing that level of research, which limits your market reach immediately. Plenty of people don’t do a bunch of research and thus wouldn’t care. Also, starting so broad means that you are aiming to capture the full spectrum of consumers off the bat, but it’s going to take a while to get enough reviews to make it worthwhile for Joe Schmoe to fork up a fee to read what other experts think about the best Nikon DSLR budget zoom lens for birding photography… stuff gets niche real quick and there’s a critical mass that you need to reach to pull consumers over from existing resources. And in that vein, these consumers that research purchases obsessively online already have the sources for their interest. Yes, some of tbe major platforms are no longer reliable, but I still know the forums, experts, and search terms to use to research my birding needs. Multiply that by a thousand interests and you have quite the marketing hurdle to overcome. Final thought is that it would easy for a secondary site to basically copy your ratings for reviewers to check for free.

All to say, I think the idea has merit, but would be tough to start from scratch and jt may be worth starting with just one or two markets to grow organically before expanding.

Recycling plants are pretty famously unprofitable, hence all the closures in recent years…