Sorry, EP, but I have to disagree, on both counts:

Though the work in this project is being done by amateurs, it is mostly by interested and serious amateurs and is cross-checked to ensure a reasonable degree of reliability. The part that simply measures crater size and number can't be too far off, no matter who does the analysis. The crater classification section is a little harder, but still should provide some reasonable indicators of type distribution and terrain age, etc.

And though I definitely agree that cratering studies deserve more than a shoestring budget, maybe if people had a look at what this group is doing and used it to push for more funding, the purse strings might be opened a little more. Pointing to positive efforts, no matter how inadequate, beats complaining anytime, in my books.