Cómo funciona, en detalle

Every breeder carries two scores. The pre-sale score covers conduct while you are still a prospect: enquiries, visits, health disclosure, contract negotiation. The post-sale score covers what happens after the money clears: support, accountability, whether guarantees were honoured, how the animal actually turned out.

The headline satisfaction score is the mean of those two, and deliberately not an average of all reviews. Pre-sale reviews vastly outnumber post-sale ones — everybody reviews a charming enquiry process; only the unlucky are still writing two years later. A flat average therefore lets a good sales process bury a poor aftercare record, which is the precise failure this platform was built to correct.

Rankings use a rolling twelve-month window, so nobody coasts on a reputation from five years ago, and exclude breeders with fewer than three reviews in that window — a single five-star review can never top a table.

Reviews are held for a human to read before publishing when they:

• state a serious allegation as fact — fraud, forgery, abuse, neglect;
• contain links, email addresses or phone numbers;
• carry an extreme rating with almost no explanation;
• attach evidence to a serious post-sale complaint;
• contain threats or violent language.

That triage is rule-based rather than model-based, on purpose. When a breeder asks why their review was held, “it matched these two rules” is an answer that can be argued with. “The model disliked it” is not. Any automated second opinion sits behind those rules and can only recommend holding something — never publishing something the rules held.

We remove content that is:

• not a first-hand account by the person posting it;
• identifying of a private individual, or containing personal data;
• demonstrably fabricated — for example, a transaction that never occurred;
• harassment rather than an account of an experience.

Anonymous means anonymous, not just “no name shown.” Posting anonymously also drops any city you gave for context — a breeder holds their own customer list, and a city alongside a breed and a rough date is usually enough to work out exactly who wrote it. A country can stay; it rarely narrows things to one buyer. This is enforced when the review is submitted, not left for a moderator to catch afterwards.

We do not remove a review because it is unfavourable, because a breeder disputes it, or because a breeder threatens us. Breeders get a public right of reply on every review, shown directly beneath it. That is the remedy: answer it, in the open, where the same readers will see it.

A trust platform is worth exactly as much as the things it still refuses to sell. These are structural, not preferences:

• Rankings, search result ordering and satisfaction scores cannot be bought at any price. They are computed from reviews, and no payment of any kind changes where a breeder appears.
• Front-page promotion is not sold. Breeders cannot pay to appear more prominently, in any section, at any price.
• Advertising is always labelled as advertising, never styled to resemble a breeder listing, and never placed inside a score block or a review list.
• Advertisers and subscribers have no influence over scores, rankings, reviews or moderation outcomes.
• Activating a portal never changes a number. It grants a right of reply, document submission, and factual corrections — nothing else.
• Private evidence stays private. Veterinary reports and contracts default to moderators-only, and the breeder being reviewed never gets direct access to them.

A verification badge means a moderator read documents. It does not guarantee the health of any individual animal, and it is not an endorsement. Breed health information here is general and educational — it is not veterinary advice about your animal.

Reviews are the opinions and recollections of the people who wrote them. We publish them because owners need them, and we hold the serious ones for review first, but a review is not a finding of fact and this site does not present it as one.

Absence of complaints is not evidence of good practice. A breeder with no reviews is an unknown, not a safe bet.