I hate to be "that guy" but I have pretty serious problems with the site and your response here. Respectfully, you're admitting that you're not doing the thing

I hate to be "that guy" but I have pretty serious problems with the site and your response here. Respectfully, you're admitting that you're not doing the thing the website principally claims. It doesn't matter what you intended - the site is claiming that it aggregates pretrained models. Not only does it not do that, but it apparently only scrapes third party resources with little to no manual oversight in whether or not the e.g. code repository even contains a pretrained model. But wait: your plan going forward is to offload the moderation onto users?! So instead of being responsible for the content, the users (who ostensibly came to your site because they couldn't find what they were looking for) are now obligated to do due diligence. What's the difference between this and just searching GitHub for paper titles or keywords? The final issue I have is more meta. I don't really see the value of the site as implemented. Why are you automatically scraping all of these resources? Why don't you curate them yourself and demonstrate that competency to the community? As it stands this is blatantly misleading and seems like a transparent attempt to cash in views for buzzwords, regardless of whether or not the user is ultimately helped by the content. Sorry for being harsh, but this is kind of brazenly inept. I can understand that automatically scraping these resources gives you a lot of leeway to scale up inclusion to make it more viable. However you really can't just turn on a scraper, direct it at a few keywords and tell your users to sort it out. Users will want this site to make their lives easier instead of wading into the complexity themselves. You're not reducing that complexity, you're just adding another layer of abstraction to it.