That's the SEC standard. This is a small, private, niche website. I'm not going to hold them to those standards, and they really don't have to disclose ANYTHING to anyone. The fact that they have that sponsor page - even if it's out of date - is a credit to them and is at least a degree of transparency.
There is no perfect solution. As Bill Cosby said, "I don't know the key to success, but the key to failure is trying to please everyone." Where would you draw the line? Past sponsor's even if they only did a 3-month campaign in 2001? What about if a company isn't currently a sponsor at the time of a review, but then becomes one? No one will ever be 100% satisfied w/ their system. As Jude stated earlier, if any of this is an issue for you or anyone else, simply discount all the mod & admin reviews. Pretty easy solution IMO.
Maybe I'm alone here, but individual biases in reviews, whether from site staff or otherwise, don't bother me at all, because I know there is no such thing as a perfect review - or, perhaps better stated, there's no such thing as a review that will tell me if I'll like something or not. One review alone will NOT convince me of anything. Is eliminating all bias even possible? I don't think so. Maybe Lachlan's idea has some merit, and he's free to explore that elsewhere, but IMHO the drama that has resulted from this thread is completely RIDICULOUS. I have to give Jude credit for even letting this silliness continue (although I also understand that closing it would only create more evil conspiracy theories). Lachlan is taking their moderation of a specific rule & topic to an extreme and asserting they won't allow ANY talk that could negatively affect their sponsors, AND being overly dramatic about it. Anyone that watches his video can see he's clearly clouded (and IMO, misguided) with emotion right now - something I'm sure he'll regret after he has some time to cool off. To be honest I enjoy his reviews and I respect his opinions, but I completely agree w/ Jude on this.