Guidelines refreshed

[c۞g]

<quote user="mywot team">
Small guidelines update: Live links to pages on mywot.com are fine.
[/quote]

Live links to other domains are "fine" as well.
This is why the ability to use HTML tags is offered when posting replies:

Код: Выделить всё

<img src="http://image.host/img-url" />

Код: Выделить всё

<a href="http://www.trusted.site">Trusted site or currently green reputation</a>

[/i]

The "no live links" was incorporated strictly for discussions of domains having no reputation or non-green reputations.

To prove this, WOT posts links to all domains in a Site Evaluation thread and they only become live when they've earned a good / excellent reputation.

However, posting guidelines is not restricted to just these forums, they carry over to scorecards as well as the blog.
Blog posts referencing URL's should only do so if the URL is trusted by the WOT Community (green / dark green reputation)

[№3344]

<quote user="destinationtruth">
Still think comments should be mandatory. . . might call this being more transparent.
[/quote]

Agree, (edit: agree but have a little remark on it: it may cause problems for people who do not want others to see they're visiting specific sites, eg - CP/bestiality/drugs etc, but they feel it is extremely needed to rate these sites down; on the other hand when you often see nothing but only "dumb" colored reputation without textual details that makes you think as to "what's the reason?", mandatory comments is a good idea; generally it should be applied to newly registered users until they get some score/trust or whatever).

In addition generally. It's best to have good functions for users, something like "Do not automatically parse URLs" check box below the text field (if admins are too suspicious of live links, it can be checked by default).

But on the admins behalf it is self-contradictory; they forbid posting ALL live links, while on the contrary themselves posting live links even to "yellow" and "gray" sites on their blog.

@Admin
Rules do not tolerate exceptions (especially for rule creators who should first_before_anyone_else strongly follow them)

[Armored]

<quote user="c۞g">
Live links to other domains are "fine" as well...........
......The "no live links" was incorporated strictly for discussions of domains having no reputation or non-green reputations.
[/quote] That's what I thought, but when you read something like this in the guidelines: <quote user= "guidlines">When posting websites and links:
Please do not post live links when referencing a website or page that's not part of mywot.com. [/quote] It clearly gives the impression that what you are saying is wrong. Websites with green reputations are still NOT part of mywot.com, and if we are to apply the current Forum guidlines on this point literally (I know that some moderators do) Therefore we still shouldn't post links to such websites regardless how green they are.

<quote user="c۞g">This is why the ability to use HTML tags is offered when posting replies: :[/b]

Код: Выделить всё

<img src="http://image.host/img-url" />

Код: Выделить всё

<a href="http://www.trusted.site">Trusted site or currently green reputation</a>

[/i]
[/quote] Unfortunately what is written in the guidelines and how the Forum software is built and what it allows us to do is nothing but a MASSIVE contradiction. That ability contradicts the guidelines. That's why there is some confusion among some of the moderators on this point. With respect you guys aren't all on the same page with this issue-This needs to be cleared up once and for all.

[№3344]

<quote user="shazza">
It isn't possible to leave a scorecard comment with less than 30 characters, so I think they are referring to forum comments. Members often post one word replies such as 'up' , 'good site', 'rated' etc.
[/quote]

In general it's useless restriction. Restricting minimal number of characters in post will not prevent problems with appearing senseless comments; while other comments, that do not require more than 30 character to be described clearly, will suffer.

If a user doesn't have to say anything useful - no such restriction will prevent them from posting utter nonsense like "asdasddasdasdasdasdasdasdasdasd" - far over than 30 characters. It's rather against good users, than bad ones. Admin should keep it in mind.

[Armored]

<quote user="nick vini">
In general it's useless restriction.
If a user doesn't have to say anything useful - no such restriction will prevent them from posting utter nonsense like "asdasddasdasdasdasdasdasdasdasd"
[/quote] Completely agree with that point.
It's definitely possible to post a helpful comment with less than 30 characters. Edit: This is yet another example of a contradiction in the system, because as mentioned earlier by DT if you have an issue with short comments why the hell do you allow NO comments?

[№3344]

<quote user="armored">
Completely agree with that point.
It's definitely possible to post a helpful comment with less than 30 characters.
[/quote]

Armored, glad to see you again by the way!

This restriction is causing lots of problems for those who post useful comments; they have to append something unnecessary and redundant to their opinions. So it's even harmful than useless.

[Satchman]

Dear WOT,

If the site or link has been given the green WOT symbol, why is it still necessary to mask it (hxxp) under the new policy? I agree with Nick and other WOT users. You are just creating more work for your moderators by doing this. Only those sites not rated by WOT, or with the color composite, or Yellow or Red , should carry the masked (hxxp) requirement.

Satch

[Site-rater]

<quote user="satchman">
Dear WOT,

If the site or link has been given the green WOT symbol, why is it still necessary to mask it (hxxp) under the new policy? I agree with Nick and other WOT users. You are just creating more work for your moderators by doing this. Only those sites not rated by WOT, or with the color composite, or Yellow or Red , should carry the masked (hxxp) requirement.

Satch
[/quote]

Unfortunately, not everybody agrees with the green rating of all websites. For instance, many major pirated content sites are rated green, and in many cases also green for child safety despite having explicit content.

Generally, I only flag posts with green ratings if the sites are not 100% legit in my opinion.

[№3344]

<quote user="site-rater">
Unfortunately, not everybody agrees with the green rating of all websites. For instance, many major pirated content sites are rated green, and in many cases also green for child safety despite having explicit content.
[/quote]

But, obviously, that's not the reason to ban everything.
While there are incorrectly green rated sites with questionable content (torrent trackers, warez etc), the good sites shouldn't suffer.

Whats bad in linkng, for example, websites that are friends or TS of WOT?
hpHosts
DNS-BH
PhishTank

Or useful third party tools:
VT
URLVoid

[№3344]

Mainly, regardless which website has green reputation on WOT, forbidding links to green sites contradicts the main goal of this community - trust on the web. To be exact: WOT by the rules bans green live link, because it may be suspicious - don't you think it's the biggest nonsense? It gives me impression that WOT team are questioning websites reputations calculated by their own system</me>.