It's the supposed "newbies" -- with like just one, or two, or three, or six posts (which are all usually one-liners by-the-way -- starting threads asking for their "websites" to be "reviewed".
...be reviewed so they can get exposure, sales, and traffic; and not because they really want their site reviewed.
In other words, instead of trying to get clicks from putting links in their signature (and posting lots of garbage to get said signature exposure), they post as "newbies" looking to get their websites and blogs reviewed.
Yet, if I want a product of mine reviewed guess what? I have to go to the "Wanted - Members looking to hire you" thread and pay money to get people to review my product. Isn't a website also an IMer's product?
So why should people get to ask for "reviews" of their website when it's usually pretty obvious that something more is going on than simply seeking a review?
...For God's sake, yesterday, one "newbie" was looking for a review of his site that was 1) blacklisted and 2) advertising a b-l-a-c-k h-a-t product and 3) might have contained malware...
Maybe this should be moderated on a case-by-case basis or just stopped completely. Who knows.
All I'm saying is if people have to pay to get products reviewed around here (which I DON'T disagree with btw), why not have a place around here where people can go (and maybe pay) for a "review" of their website.
Otherwise, these supposed "newbies" with websites can either ask for advice on how to make their site better without showing a link to their site OR just pay to get it professionally reviewed in a "pay-for" thread.