Guidelines refreshed

Post Reply
User avatar
MyWOT-Team
Posts: 318
Joined: Mon Nov 30, 2015 12:05 pm

Guidelines refreshed

Post by MyWOT-Team » Thu Jan 14, 2016 1:20 pm

Dear community,
We have refreshed the guidelines, making them more concise and to the point, with the goals of clarifying obscurities and making them easy for new users to read and understand.
We ask that you please continue being helpful and making the forums a welcome place for new users and site owners who wish to better understand how WOT works.
Here are the refreshed guidelines, and feel free to send us your feedback if you feel something was left out!
https://www.mywot.com/en/guidelines
https://www.mywot.com/en/guidelines/site-owners
https://www.mywot.com/en/guidelines/forum-guidelines

User avatar
spectre
Posts: 4017
Joined: Sun May 03, 2009 10:43 pm

RE: Guidelines refreshed

Post by spectre » Thu Jan 14, 2016 1:34 pm

It's good to see that live links are not permitted in signatures now, but isn't a 4 line signature a little excessive, especially in forum posts?
I think that comments on the forum should require a minimum amount of characters to avoid the one word posts such as 'good', 'rated' etc.

Edit
Live links are still showing in members' signatures, how will this guideline be enforced please?

Guest

RE: Guidelines refreshed

Post by Guest » Thu Jan 14, 2016 3:22 pm

Dear, myWOT team =
Thank you, for the clearer guidelines
There is a point that I am confused about
[cite]Try not to recycle the same comments for multiple websites, as each should describe the commented site as well as possible[/cite]
Using the MRT will multiply the same comment across the board,for many sites, unless the MRT is an exception to the rule
Can I kill a link in this manner
bbc.com/news/science_and_environment
Instead of
htxxxtp://www.bbc.com/news/science_and_environment
I will like to study the rest with more time, but is a great improvement
Best regards


Site-rater
Posts: 2936
Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2009 7:48 pm

RE: Guidelines refreshed

Post by Site-rater » Thu Jan 14, 2016 4:42 pm

I have a server side suggestion - put rel="nofollow" in external live links so search engines won't pick them up, that is, to mitigate blackhat SEO spam.

User avatar
c۞g
Posts: 10927
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2009 4:02 am

RE: Guidelines refreshed

Post by c۞g » Fri Jan 15, 2016 3:09 pm

re: https://www.mywot.com/guidelines
[cite]Best practices for commenting
* Comments should be descriptive and give at least one reason. “Good site” is not a good comment.
* Scorecard comments are not a place to share general opinions about a topic, and should be strictly about website experience
* Do not post links to competitors or similar websites in your comment.
* Keep your comments brief and to the point.
* Try not to recycle the same comments for multiple websites, as each should describe the commented site as well as possible.
[/cite]
This entire section should be removed from General Guidelines and placed into a more specific location discussing ratings and comments, my proposal would be:
Scorecard Guidelines
with this URL:

Code: Select all

https://www.mywot.com/guidelines/scorecard-guidelines
[/i]
Also the following should be changed:
Scorecard comments are not a place to share general opinions about a topic, and should be strictly about website [strike]experience[/strike] evaluation
This line should be removed:
Try not to recycle the same comments for multiple websites, as each should describe the commented site as well as possible.

"recycling" is a product of the mass rating tool, it is impossible to make each comment for an entered list of domains unique, although if the !domain variable is used, comments can appear to be more specific per evaluation. IF a user does not have access to the MRT there is nothing wrong with having identical comments for a list of domains being individually rated while they share the same reason for the ratings. An example would be a group of phishing sites with a comment such as:
[cite]Identity theft / credit card abuse
This domain has been identified as a phishing site and is involved with stealing personally identifiable information.
Attempt no transaction, enter no information, follow no links
Ref:
</ reference 3rd party source(s) here >[/cite]

Site-rater
Posts: 2936
Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2009 7:48 pm

RE: Guidelines refreshed

Post by Site-rater » Fri Jan 15, 2016 3:11 pm

<quote user="c۞g">
re: https://www.mywot.com/guidelines
[cite]Best practices for commenting
* Comments should be descriptive and give at least one reason. “Good site” is not a good comment.
* Scorecard comments are not a place to share general opinions about a topic, and should be strictly about website experience
* Do not post links to competitors or similar websites in your comment.
* Keep your comments brief and to the point.
* Try not to recycle the same comments for multiple websites, as each should describe the commented site as well as possible.
[/cite]
This entire section should be removed from General Guidelines and placed into a more specific location discussing ratings and comments, my proposal would be:
Scorecard Guidelines
with this URL:

Code: Select all

https://www.mywot.com/guidelines/scorecard-guidelines
Also the following should be changed:
Scorecard comments are not a place to share general opinions about a topic, and should be strictly about website [strike]experience[/strike] evaluation

This line should be removed:
Try not to recycle the same comments for multiple websites, as each should describe the commented site as well as possible.

"recycling" is a product of the mass rating tool, it is impossible to make each comment for an entered list of domains unique, although if the !domain variable is used, comments can appear to be more specific per evaluation. IF a user does not have access to the MRT there is nothing wrong with having identical comments for a list of domains being individually rated while they share the same reason for the ratings. An example would be a group of phishing sites with a comments such as:
[cite]Identity theft / credit card abuse
This domain has been identified as a phishing site and is involved with stealing personally identifiable information.
Attempt no transaction, enter no information, follow no links
Ref:
</ reference 3rd party source(s) here >[/cite]
[/quote]

I agree with altering that last section; I don't have the MRT but have gathered various lists of malicious or illegal websites and sometimes typing in unique comments just doesn't make sense.

Site-rater
Posts: 2936
Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2009 7:48 pm

RE: Guidelines refreshed

Post by Site-rater » Sat Jan 16, 2016 12:32 am

How about requiring better descriptions when filling out evaluation forms? Some of the recent evaluation requests just have a small sentence fragment and do not describe why the site should be trustworthy.

User avatar
MyWOT-Team
Posts: 318
Joined: Mon Nov 30, 2015 12:05 pm

RE: Guidelines refreshed

Post by MyWOT-Team » Mon Jan 18, 2016 2:43 pm

Thank you all for your suggestions and recommendations. We’ve made a few updates to the guidelines based on your feedback and have prepared responses for your questions, please see below:

MRT comments: We know they are the same. As this is a tool that not everyone has, we will not remove MRT comments, but we still encourage people to write their best description for each website, both with and without the MRT. We also take into account that several users are rating websites based on a blacklist; we ask that you specify the source and time.

It’s fine to kill a link by removing “http” and “www”, such as example.com

Minimum characters for 1-word posts in forums: We have added a bullet point to the forum guidelines asking users to not post 1-word comments.

Live links in signatures: As most live links are from before this change, we know that this will not happen overnight. This will need to be a community-led effort of disabling the links in your own signatures and reporting live links to us with the contact form.

Creating a new page for scorecard guidelines: In order to centralize this content to allow new users to quickly learn, we’re leaving it on one page with the current format.

Better descriptions when filling out evaluation forms: We’ve updated the description.

Guest

RE: Guidelines refreshed

Post by Guest » Mon Jan 18, 2016 3:22 pm

@myWOT team =
Thank you, for clarifying two of my points
[cite]It’s fine to kill a link by removing “http” and “www”, such as example.com[/cite]
It may sound silly as the result is the same, but the new WOT looks so much nicer that, in my opinion
The XXX all over the URL interrupts the beautiful minimalist flow of the new WOT layout
Thank you

Site-rater
Posts: 2936
Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2009 7:48 pm

RE: Guidelines refreshed

Post by Site-rater » Wed Jan 20, 2016 3:22 am

As of now, I am trying to put a better effort into writing both better scorecard comments (or not commenting at all) and writing better responses to evaluation requests.

In addition, in a recent reply, instead of just saying "[red]Rated.[/red] I gave a more descriptive answer of "[red]Rated[/red] as [red]Potentially illegal[/red] for illegal software."

I'm always willing to take constructive advice for better rating habits and techniques.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest