Actually, I do get to be a jerk about it. You repeatedly demonstrated bad faith by not reading the links and attacking me on pretty flimsy basis.

Your first post complained that the source was tumblr, when the article on tumblr has only 3 paragraphs, and both the first and last paragraph cite the original source.

Your second post complained about seeing multiple instances of the same card, as well as doubting the validity of the site. The site has a FAQ section that addressed both concerns, i'll answer your questions here, under the assumption that you are just really bad at reading, and aren't actually acting in bad faith.

1) How accurate is this? A) Not very accurate, it's a hobby project, not a scientific research paper. Imperfect data is still interesting data, as long as you take it's biases into account.

2) Why did I see the same card multiple times? A) The site has a couple features designed to clean the data, one is requiring 'triple keying'. Basically, the site checks a card multiple times, and if it doesn't get unanimous results, it subjects the card to greater scrutiny.

3) Couldn't someone sabbatoge the site? A) Yes, there are a couple of protections built into the site against this, but i'm just a hobbyist, so there are many ways to bypass the protections. I'm not going to describe publicly how to muck with my site, but it's a bit more advanced than entering garbage data. The source code is public if you want to inspect it. (I figure anyone who wants to go through the trouble of reading the source code could probably figure out a way to screw with it anyway).

In the end, it's a for fun project I hack on in my spare time. I put a couple of roadblocks to get better data, and then just assumed the internet isn't a jerk. Worse case scenario, I have backups, and I review the progress fairly regularly, so if someone does figure out an exploit, I can just rollback the changes.