A report says what was checked and what wasn’t.
There’s no score to glance at. You get one sentence, a date and the evidence behind them. Switch the example below between every state a report can be in.
Switch between report states
Not enough evidence
A required check is missing, or the evidence conflicts. This is the report admitting it can’t tell you. It never means the site passed.
Read which check is missing, then look for that information yourself before you pay.
tallow-kitchen.test
This exact address only. Lookalike addresses aren’t covered.
Not enough evidence
Checked 28 Oct 2026
Technical fact
Scam Finder searched the site and found no refund policy on the pages it could read.
tallow-kitchen.test. Observed 28 Oct 2026.
- The site loaded as a real shopDone
- Site type and language are supportedDone
- Identity and contact detailsDone
- Delivery, returns and payment termsDone
- Independent threat sourceMissing
Experiences
First-hand accounts. They aren’t proven and they don’t affect anything above this line.
6 experiences
- Positive
- 1
- Mixed
- 1
- Negative
- 3
- Unresolved
- 1
The sentence at the top still reads “Not enough evidence”.
Bands are sentences. Read them top down.
The rules run in this order and the first match wins. That’s why a serious listing still shows when other checks failed, and why a gap blocks the reassuring sentence at the bottom. The same rules apply to every site, whoever owns it.
Evidence raises concerns
An approved threat source lists this exact address right now, or impersonation is documented, or serious problems appear across more than one kind of check.
Not enough evidence
A required check is missing, the site’s type or language isn’t supported, or the evidence conflicts.
Some concerns to investigate
Every required check finished and the sources support specific problems, such as terms demanding payment you can’t reverse.
No notable concerns found in this check
Every required check finished and nothing reached the bar. Its limitations are always printed with it.
You’ll never see a percentage, a safety score or a model’s confidence. Read the methodology
One outage can change the whole sentence.
A shop has five required checks. Here’s the same small shop twice. The site didn’t change. One outside source went down.
5 of 5 required checks completed
- Site loaded: done
- Type and language: done
- Identity and contact: done
- Terms: done
- Threat source: done
No notable concerns found in this check
4 of 5 required checks completed
- Site loaded: done
- Type and language: done
- Identity and contact: done
- Terms: done
- Threat source: missing
Not enough evidence
“4 of 5 checks” is a count of work done. It never means 80% safe.
- A timeout is a gap.
- If a page didn’t load, the report can’t say what was on it.
- A challenge page is a gap.
- The site answered, but with a blocker instead of itself. That covers nothing.
- A missing refund policy is a finished check.
- The site was searched and the policy wasn’t there, so it’s listed as a limitation.
- A check that doesn’t apply is skipped.
- A news site isn’t marked down for having no returns page.
Unknown is never safe.
A scam shop opened last week has no history to find. The less there is to check, the less a report can say, so a thin page should make you slower. Four things people mistake for an answer:
A padlock in the address bar
It shows the connection is encrypted. It doesn’t tell you who is on the other end.
A brand-new domain
Shown as context. New shops are allowed, so age adds no concern.
The country or domain ending
Neither counts as a risk signal by itself.
No complaints online
Nobody may have looked yet. An empty search isn’t a clean record.
Two kinds of evidence, one wall between them.
Findings come from sources. Experiences come from people. They’re never added together, so glowing accounts can’t cancel a threat listing and angry ones can’t create one.
The website states
“Refunds are issued as store credit only.”
tallow-kitchen.test/returns. Observed 28 Oct 2026.
Asked for my $48 back and was offered store credit.
Written by quietfern, a fictional member.
| Question | Finding | Experience |
|---|---|---|
| Who’s speaking | Finding: A source, named and dated | Experience: A member, under a pseudonym |
| How far it’s checked | Finding: Matched back to the source by automated checks | Experience: Screened against our rules. It isn’t proven |
| What it changes | Finding: Can change the sentence at the top | Experience: Never changes the sentence at the top |
Outcomes are counted with their total beside them, and that’s all. You won’t find an average, and sorting never favours happy or unhappy accounts. What an experience has to include
Got a site in mind? Start with the address.
Then read the date, the gaps and the sources, in that order.
Found a mistake in a report? Challenge it