Check out our latest communities fighting
AI scams on Reddit and Facebook
On SmartCustomer, businesses may not offer incentives or pay to remove reviews. Learn more about our Review Guidelines.
WebSleuths has a rating of 1.7 stars from 106 reviews, indicating that most customers are generally dissatisfied with their purchases. Reviewers dissatisfied with WebSleuths most frequently mention law enforcement, long time and new members. WebSleuths ranks 362nd among Forum sites.
We monitor reviews for authenticity
The concept of this site is terrific, but execution leaves much to be desired. It's great that they make the attempt to confine discussion to what they consider fact, but they declare mainstream media to be the only justifiable source to verify fact all while acknowledging that most of what is promoted by mainstream media today has little credibility due to bad reporting, incorrect "facts", and inconsistency. Users are constantly reminded that social media can't be used to substantiate factual information, yet readers are constantly pointed in the direction of interesting tidbits seen on sites such as Facebook -- there are threads that have little to nothing to do with coming together to help the victim, but instead are just post after post telling the reader to go get info from Facebook. Do yourself a favor and never read a thread about a missing child, because you will be subjected to a never-ending Greek chorus about the failures of CPS or the ruthlessness of CPS or the ignorance/laziness/corruptness/cruelty of CPS for not being omniscient (because moaning about it always helps find a missing child...) Add to that the never-ending chain of "that child should have been taken away and given to me, I would have loved it" and that good old standby "RIP" and you'll want to rip your own face off after a while. Websleuths allegedly does not allow discussion of sleuthing individuals not named as persons of interest, yet they have over 100 threads for Gabriel Petito in which it's a free-for-all bashing the boyfriend's family and sharing their personal details, that whole mess should have been a shameful embarrassment yet moderators were standing there shoulder-to-shoulder with the others slinging mud and posting an endless litany of "Kill the monsters" and "Poor Gabby" and similar drivel. In its defense, the site does offer the opportunity for people to bring together skills from all different walks of life, and information is shared that can lead to real solutions in some of these cases -- many unidentified individuals have gotten their names and dignity returned to them, and clues have helped law enforcement make progress in solving murders or finding missing persons. And the moderators do help to keep the crazies at bay, at least those that are obviously wearing tinfoil hats. The site does offer a large number of resources for families of those who are missing, and can be a really good source of support. There's a lot of good, but you have to wade through an endless amount of hooey to get there.
Answer: Depends, if it's something they agree with you'll be golden, if you have any level of criticism then they are harsh.
Answer: At one time Websleuths actually did provide a space for good investigatory endeavours. If you look at archives from 2006 era of the site, there was some great research done. But in the last five or six years all the intellect has been banned and you are left with primarily very very old people, who do no research, barely know the facts of the cases they are discussing, and who babble and are annoyed by anyone who interrupts their babble with facts.
Answer: It's legitimate in that is is a chat-room blog, it is illegitimate in that what transpires on this blog is the farthest thing from "sleuthing" or crime solving that I can think of. Most people on the site are unfamiliar with detailed facts of the cases, or with forensics. There are regulars who roam from forum to forum in zombie-like fashion, espousing the exact same thoughts over and over again, regardless of the case or topic. There is also a lot of claim to expertise or relevant profession that is supposedly vetted by Websleuths, claims that seem doubtful. If someone says they are an attorney, that alone does not make them qualified to speak to just any legal issue. And any attorney not afraid of a law suit would make this full disclosure upfront. Yet none of the so-called attorneys on the site do this. And if someone presents themselves as an expert or practicing professional, why aren't others on the forum allowed to know what actual qualifications they have and who they are. It's one thing to remain anonymous when you are simply giving an opinion-but when you claim your opinion is based on experience or education, I do believe at that point you should be prepared to reveal yourself, so that people can know the quality of the information they are relying on. Websleuths is a real chatroom blog, but it is a sham as a place of fact and substantiation.
Answer: Find another forum. Websleuths is really not worth the time.
Answer: I don't know. I suspect they are just not very intelligent people and resent those who are.
Answer: Don't worry. I guarantee you'll get more insight on Reddit than web-nonsleuths. They have nothing to offer.
Answer: Because assholes need to try to feel clever so they join to self flatter. It's the same reason none do any decent research because the unspoken rule is to not make others look dumb. If you do they attack in groups and use corrupt moderators to shut you down.
Answer: Don't waste your time. Reddit has much cleverer commentary on cases. Websleuths is very low IQ and geriatric.
Gain trust and grow your business with customer reviews.
Claim your free account
Gain trust and grow your business with customer reviews.
Claim your free account