[bsza]

You are only assuming one kind of attack vector, which is a landlord discovering this exact site. Whereas the more impactful scenario is a web crawler discovering this site, grabbing its content and making it Googleable, so that not one but every landlord can access it. Like I already explained 4 comments ago.

I honestly don’t get why I even have to explain this. The original question was how anonymous it can get. Any practice that reduces the amount of personal information, or the ease to access it, helps, period. Dismissing one because it doesn’t offer perfect protection is like not using condoms because they are ineffective against mono. There is no reason not to implement them - that is, if the maintainer actually cares about privacy.

[ZhadruOmjar]

If the site becomes popular e.g. "#1 Landlord Review Site" then everyone will be checking their reviews on it. If it's never popular and not used often then it doesn't matter if it's clear text or not.

[bsza]

Yes it does. Being a small business does not entitle you to share the addresses where your customers live with everyone.

[saagarjha]

I think you fundamentally misunderstand or have yet to convey how such a site would solve the problem of distinguishing “I am a tenant looking for reviews of a property” and “I am a landlord looking for reviews of my property”.

[bsza]

I never stated it does. You are the one driving at this point as if it were the only issue, or the most important issue, which it is neither.

What it does solve is the problem of this data being visible to every landlord who types the address of their property into a vastly more popular search engine known as Google. They need not even know of this site, it gets served to them on a silver platter.

And if you think a robots.txt alone solves that, you’re mistaken. A robots.txt is just a recommendation. Web crawlers are not obligated to honor it. The only way to solve it is to make sure the private data isn’t even there in the first place.