[bsenftner]

Honestly, it does not appear like a research institute at all. It looks like the styling that the owners of People's Magazine or the National Enquirer would use to market their 'research nonprofit' where the actual research contribution is 3% of their revenues, while supporting fat salaries for an executive staff. It just looks too consumer and not academic, not serious. It is simply too feel good. It has the trappings of respectability, but not really. It's too slick. I also never spent the time to look deeper, the loud consumer targeted presentation drove me away.

[insane_dreamer]

Probably because creating a nice-looking website is more likely to drive engagement with today's users than something that looks like it was made by some academic stuck in the 90s.

[carls]

I think it's reasonable to be turned off by a slick-looking website, but I imagine it's because the intended audience of the website is the general (dog-owning) public, likely for the purposes of soliciting participants.

Interestingly, through engaging with you I discovered that this is a cognitive bias called the "horn effect" and is the reverse of the more common "Halo effect": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horn_effect#:~:text=The%20horn....

[x0x0]

If only you could check your claims with the investment of 20 seconds and 2 clicks

Here, now it's one click

https://dogagingproject.org/our-team

[enraged_camel]

Several people have corrected you, and yet you keep going, claiming that this is some sort of fraud. What's your deal? Why are you spreading FUD?

[bsenftner]

"several people"? I engaged with two people and moved on.

[op00to]

Maybe the person just really loves it when their dog dies early. :(