I would say that they have provide necessary jadedness. I stumbled onto the BFF quite late when I began looking into this topic and first found a few sites that laid out who all the interested parties were in Big-money-foot.com, and provided documented instances of some of these people faking photos, wood knocks, tracks, stone-throwing, and even the supposed finding of bodies. The traveling snake-oil salesmen of yore would be proud of their efforts to make bigfoot into a profit center.
Yep. In addition to my database, I have a list of "researchers" who are reported to have been caught knowingly and purposefully hoaxing and known hoaxes. I use that information as a factor in evaluating the credibility of reports in my database - if the "researcher" is rotten one time, it's hard to trust anything from that researcher any other time. Also, if a series of reports just happen to occur in the vicinity of a known hoax, they may be tainted as well. However, that is something that each individual has to do on their own as there is no Better Bigfoot Bureau that objectively certifies researchers or reports.
Agreed. Although passions can occasionally run high and sharp elbows get thrown, this place is pretty good at doing neutral, none-outcome-based, analysis.
And to tie back to my comment above, this is why everyone has to have their own reference point for what researchers and evidence that they trust or don't trust. Assuming that you're describing a case where objective truth can't be known with certainty (i.e., you're the witness who has the evidence and knows the certainty of it's validity), people can legitimately disagree on whether something should or should not be accepted as valid evidence w/o either of them being wrong or mule-headed. One reasonable man sees it one way, another reasonable man sees it another.
And to be fair, absent strong evidence that something is in fact a hoax or bad ID, then declaring something a conclusive hoax should be almost as rare as calling something conclusive evidence of bigfoot.