We'd have to ask Kevin but I'd surmise that if SOT or any other entity started "vetting" clients, they might open themselves up to liability if their findings were in error.  I think free and open discussions without any censoring forms of monitering is working quite well.  Yes, I'm sure there are times when I company is trashed needlessly by someone with an ax to grind, but from what I've seen, others are quick to jump to that company's aid by posting that they haven't any trouble with the company.  I leave it to each abstractor to decide when many companies are mentioned repeatedly and by numerous well-respected abstractors whether or not to take the chance.  I'd never take the word of one sole posting with no replies to make a business decision.  Example:  Greenlink.  When they contacted me, I searched SOT for postings.  I found some from a while ago that were very negative.  I then posted wondering if that was still true---because any company can have a momentary blip in their dealings.  What I found was that, not only was it still true, it was worse--so I declined to work for them.  I'm sure they found someone else, but I had to decide for my own business whether the work they were "promising" was worth the potential headaches.  I decided "no".