How to improve WOT

Guest

Re: Everyone has his own

Post by Guest » Fri Jan 22, 2010 8:53 pm

I rather think that BKowalski is right. One way to solve this question would be giving meanings of the colours. For example, for "Child safety" rate:
- Red = dangerous for any adult;
- Orange= dangerous for children but not for adult;
- Yellow = not sure;
- Light green = soft for children and not dangerous for teenagers;
- Green = OK for everybody.
Using meanings instead colours everybody would speak in the same way. WOT would only have to put a meaning below the colour.




Kraftwerk
Posts: 7981
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2009 12:30 pm

if that was meant

Post by Kraftwerk » Fri Jan 22, 2010 9:01 pm

agree







Blueberrycake Level Member of the WOT Community

BKowalski
Posts: 24
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2010 9:53 am

Yes everyone has his own

Post by BKowalski » Fri Jan 22, 2010 9:10 pm

Yes everyone has his own experience but what is the base line? You must have a standard from which everyone can take their cue. Simply allowing everyone to rate sites as they see fit will produce inconsistancies and errors because it is based on individual prejudice.

Saying that most sites are rated as you would rate them means what? That WoT is based on what you like? I have no idea what your rating philosophy is and I may agree or disagree with it but you cannot say it is impartial or objective. No one is 100% impartial or objective which is why you need a rating system based on hard fact not individual judgement.

In essence what WoT is doing is saying that join our community in order to impose our standard of what makes a good or bad website on everyone else. Some aspects ie virus/malware sites are valuable and by all means flag these up but ease of navigation? What is confusing to one person is not confusing to another. Aethstetic considerations are a matter of taste and very often go in and out of fashion. I may see a website that I think is badly designed but I hesitate to rate it poorly because frankly its none of my business.

Kraftwerk
Posts: 7981
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2009 12:30 pm

Saying that "they are rated

Post by Kraftwerk » Fri Jan 22, 2010 9:34 pm

Saying that "they are rated as i would rate them" was incorrect. When a site is rated by lots of people i can very often see a sense in this rating and i can understand it. Although i might would have rated differently.

You say there must be a standard. You´re right. And there is already a standard. With the colours you can show if you think the site is good, acceptable, worse.. Of course, words,explanations would it make more understandable, but i think you can´t write it in less words what kinds of sub-category e.g. Privacy could be meant. There are many, and for everybocy there´s a different thing important.

Have a look at the categories: E.g."Phishing or other scam":These are examples, several other scams could be listed. To show what is important for you and why you have rated that way use the comment. Everybody will understand why you´ve rated that way and maybe rate so also. i think this is more effektive.


Blueberrycake Level Member of the WOT Community

-L-
Posts: 2
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2010 9:34 pm

suggestion

Post by -L- » Fri Jan 22, 2010 9:34 pm

I'd like to ability to flag a website for suspected piracy. Just like you can flag for adult content, viruses and so on.

BKowalski
Posts: 24
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2010 9:53 am

Well I would say there is no

Post by BKowalski » Fri Jan 22, 2010 9:59 pm

Well I would say there is no standard that I can see by which to assess a site as good, acceptable or worse but we will leave it there and agree to disagree :)

However I will go back to my own personal experience. WoT came to my attention because one of our sites (an adult site) had a poor rating due to someone inserting malware on one of its pages. This was detected and the malware removed. Google and Norton detected the presence of malware and logged it and then later rescanned and okayed the site when we had cleaned out the problem. Everything worked as it should in these circumtances.

Malwareurl has still got the infected page listed despite having been informed that this is incorrect. WoT is still using this incorrect information, or to be precise its members are.

As malwareurl is incorrect then I would and should rate the site as low on 'trustworthiness' along with WoT itself as our site is still getting poor ratings based on incorrect information :)

The objective of WoT from the WoT site "WOT adds an extra layer of browsing protection so you avoid online scams, identity theft, spyware, spam and unreliable shopping sites"

No one has a problem with that. I am all for the elimination of illegal activity that deters people from using the net. I want people to use the net and shop safely. But equally you have to get your facts right before you issue ratings and I do disagree with commentry/rating based on aethstetic considerations. But thats just a personal view.

Thank you for listening.

Bob




Sami
Posts: 6987
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 11:43 am

Re: Yes everyone has his own

Post by Sami » Fri Jan 22, 2010 10:02 pm

You must have a standard from which everyone can take their cue.

Have you seen [url=https://www.mywot.com/settings/guide t=_self]the guide page[/url]? It's shown to everyone who installs the add-on and there's a link to it on the rating window.

Simply allowing everyone to rate sites as they see fit will produce inconsistancies and errors because it is based on individual prejudice

You make it sound like it's possible to simply tell people how to rate and they will obey your rules. If you build a rating system based on that assumption, you're in for a surprise. People base their trust on different things and while we ask them to be objective, we know it's not always going to happen. That's one reason why in an imperfect world we need mathematical wizardry to reduce bias and filter out attempts to game the system.

what WoT is doing is saying that join our community in order to impose our standard of what makes a good or bad website on everyone else

Really, and here I thought we were asking people to tell us how much they trust websites. We don't impose reputations on anyone. If you want to ignore poorly rated sites, fine, but you are free to ignore the rating too and visit the site anyway. In fact, we don't even expect you to agree with all the reputations, they just tell you what other people think. If everyone agreed with all the reputations, we wouldn't need a rating system. I could just rate the sites myself and everyone would be happy.

Sami
Posts: 6987
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 11:43 am

Re: Well I would say there is no

Post by Sami » Fri Jan 22, 2010 10:52 pm

there is no standard that I can see by which to assess a site as good, acceptable or worse

We expect you to [url=https://www.mywot.com/wiki/FAQ#Users_aren.27t_qualified_to_rate_sites t=_self]only share your experiences[/url]. You probably weren't told by which standards you should assess people in real life either, but I'm sure you are still able to determine if a person can be trusted from your experiences.

then later rescanned and okayed the site when we had cleaned out the problem

There's also an obvious difference between these services. Google and Norton have malware blacklists, while we measure your site's reputation. Analogy time: let's say you own a public venue where people come to be entertained. One evening part of your building suddenly collapses. You quickly rebuild the collapsed part and the safety inspection confirms it's safe for your customers to return. However, it turns out the incident damaged your reputation and people are wary of coming back. It's going to take you some time to regain their trust and convince people that you won't be dropping buildings on them again.

Everything worked as it should in these circumtances.

Of course, at the same time Google and Norton will both tell you a scam site is perfectly safe too, as long as there's no malware. But that's a different story.

The objective of WoT from the WoT site "WOT adds an extra layer of browsing protection so you avoid ...

That's actually a side effect, not necessarily the objective. It turns out people often have a good reason for not trusting sites.

BKowalski
Posts: 24
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2010 9:53 am

There's also an obvious

Post by BKowalski » Fri Jan 22, 2010 11:36 pm

There's also an obvious difference between these services. Google and Norton have malware blacklists, while we measure your site's reputation. Analogy time: let's say you own a public venue where people come to be entertained. One evening part of your building suddenly collapses. You quickly rebuild the collapsed part and the safety inspection confirms it's safe for your customers to return. However, it turns out the incident damaged your reputation and people are wary of coming back. It's going to take you some time to regain their trust and convince people that you won't be dropping buildings on them again.

Of course it takes time to rebuild peoples faith however this is hardly helped by yourselves via malwareurl spreading misinformation. I am not sure how anyone is helped by using incorrect information. Not sure how using incorrect information is going to help you much when measuring a sites reputation either.

And yes a scam site is a different story. We are not a scam site. We are an adult site. Google and Norton do run malware blacklists and a great deal more efficently then malwareurl does it would seem.

Leaving aside the philosophical agruments for and against WoT there is one issue that is black and white. There is no malware on the site in question. By stating otherwise WoT is wrong.

You are free not to like the site and free to say so it would seem (refer my PM to you) but I do object to something being stated as fact when it is not the case. It is afterall human nature to object to a false accusation :)

On a seperate point if the statement on the front page of WoT is not the objective but merely a side effect then is WoT misleading people? I certainly read the sites intention as that otherwise why have it?

Bob


Sami
Posts: 6987
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 11:43 am

Re: There's also an obvious

Post by Sami » Sat Jan 23, 2010 12:22 am

There is no malware on the site in question. By stating otherwise WoT is wrong.

Actually, WOT only computes a reputation for the site, as I've been trying to explain. Comments left on the scorecard imply that a past malware incident still affects the reputation though.

I certainly read the sites intention as that otherwise why have it?

The objective is and has always been to measure website reputations. Everything else follows from that.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests