There's something slightly disturbing about this need to airbush your online persona and I think you need to address this in your marketing. Try to focus on the

There's something slightly disturbing about this need to airbush your online persona and I think you need to address this in your marketing. Try to focus on the positive aspects of your application, e.g. that some people are so clueless that they portrait themselves as losers/jerks when they in fact are very nice people; your service really helps people. It seems to me that you are making an assumption that the reviewers are equally competent on reviewing a certain profile, but doesn't this type of work involve individual taste? How can you decide if the profile is good or not without looking at the semiotics of the profile or the identity of the customer? A profile for a New York hipster is probably very different from a blue-collar worker in Germany. Are your reviewers cognizant about these things? If so, maybe you should communicate this in your marketing, i.e. that your reviewers have diverse backgrounds ("We have reviewers who are hipsters, yuppies, hippies, Christians, Asians, African-Americans and more!"). The core issue here is credibility but also the reason why the test panel sucks as a feedback instrument: how people claim to perceive reality differs greatly from how they actually perceive it. Your reviewers might claim that a certain profile is sleazy but that's an opinion formed without the actual context. So highlight the good stuff about your reviewers, transform them into expert on the subject, not just some opinionated randoms. Whether anonymity hurts or strengthens your reviewers is up to you to figure out. In real life we put a lot of trust in acknowledged experts who per definition cannot be anonymous unless they work under the banner of a prestigious organization.