If You Could Pick Three Things About WOT That Could Be Improved?

Satchman
Posts: 1163
Joined: Mon Dec 28, 2009 1:08 pm

If You Could Pick Three Things About WOT That Could Be Improved?

Post by Satchman » Wed Apr 02, 2014 9:31 pm

Hey Guys,

I love WOT and have been using it for several years! Its community driven, real-time color-coded warning system is easy to use, comprehensive, and brings people together on an international level to make the web a safer place for everyone!

However, any software always has room for improvement and I want to ask the community if you could change up to three things to make WOT better, what would they be? To encourage diverse opinions from all, try to limit your list to a maximum of three things, Here are mine:

1.) A better system to see changes happen in real-time when popular sites have thousands to millions of ratings-I think that this is one of WOT's biggest drawbacks in the rating system. Sites rated by millions of people that were once good ten years ago, are still rated good even though they have malware now. For evidence, please see our discussion of how awful Cnet's download site has become due to malware infestation on almost every one of its downloads. Yet it has an excellent WOT rating?

https://www.mywot.com/en/forum/42044-why-i-hate-download-cnet-com

At the same time, sites that once had poor reputations and have had malware cleaned up can still be rated poor for a very, very long time. When a site gets thousands to millions of ratings, it's color icon is more likely to represent a composite of the safety of the site over the last several years, not what it is trustworthiness should be right now, in real time.

2.) Social Network sites like Facebook are rated too highly because the "Teeny Booper" hip crowd is more concerned with the communicating with their friends than the safety of their computer. Is an Excellent WOT rating REALLY reflective at that site for Trustworthiness? What about Excellent for Child Safety? Do you think that a Yellow Composite rating for Facebook for both Trustworthiness and Child Safety is a more accurate representation for Facebook?

3.) I would like to see better integration with WOT through real-time virus scanners and malware checkers at sites to help influence the ratings. Balance this out between the ratings of the community and what data from virus and malware labs show. It's good to have ratings come from international users from around the world, but to help prevent user abuse of rating the system, take cloud-based data from reliable virus scanners and malware engines and incorporate that into the ratings. WOT collects data from reliable third-party software venders to assist if sites engage in phishing or malware distribution. Bring a composite of virus scanners like Avast, MSE, AVG, Avera into the rating system composite. Providing a mixture of real-time customer experiences, along with data from security companies, strikes a better balance for more realistic WOT ratings protocol.

Satch

Guest

RE: If You Could Pick Three Things About WOT That Could Be Impro

Post by Guest » Wed Apr 02, 2014 11:52 pm

@Satchman =Thank you for your positive thread

I do agree with two of your points, the second that is related to the Social media, I rated very negative, but we are going to need more red ink

Personally I dislike them, and throughout its history, my opinion has been redeemed, the fact is that most users do not show their social media links, in email signatures or forums like in the old days since, they fear that someone may get too much information from them

In reality they already lost a great deal of personal data that at one time, was private, but somehow they need their "friends"and "followers" to the point that, they even pay to get them

Your question is very good, so I would like to think carefully before I post my recommendations, after I get some rest

Best regards

Malwarebust
Posts: 4
Joined: Fri May 02, 2014 11:21 pm

RE: If You Could Pick Three Things About WOT That Could Be Impro

Post by Malwarebust » Fri May 02, 2014 11:36 pm

1.) If WOT changed the reputation of already malicious sites, like softonic and download.cnet.com.
2.) If WOT included virus protection
3.) If WOT.... meh, that's all I can think of.

drsumit
Posts: 1584
Joined: Sun Jan 05, 2014 5:15 pm

RE: If You Could Pick Three Things About WOT That Could Be Impro

Post by drsumit » Sat May 03, 2014 5:23 am

One thing I would like to change is when rating bad sites if the need arises
I may pick more than three categories but I don't like this warning - http://prntscr.com/3fokzu
Just because I selected four categories does not mean that my review is not credible.

2ndly when a site evaluation has been posted if the site is unknown the wot live link to the site is enabled
which is not a good thing considering the fact we don't know what kind of site that is. So live links can be disabled
until the site has been rated green then it can be enabled.

Example - https://www.mywot.com/en/forum/45342-towadi-com see - http://prntscr.com/3fouza

Take the case of this - https://www.mywot.com/en/forum/46162-xhamster-com
this is a porn website with a good reputation live link was enabled and only after we requested
admin to disable the live link then it was disabled.

Guest

RE: If You Could Pick Three Things About WOT That Could Be Impro

Post by Guest » Sat May 03, 2014 10:52 am

<quote user="drsumit">
One thing I would like to change is when rating bad sites if the need arises
I may pick more than three categories but I don't like this warning - http://prntscr.com/3fokzu
Just because I selected four categories does not mean that my review is not credible.

2ndly when a site evaluation has been posted if the site is unknown the wot live link to the site is enabled
which is not a good thing considering the fact we don't know what kind of site that is. So live links can be disabled
until the site has been rated green then it can be enabled.

Example - https://www.mywot.com/en/forum/45342-towadi-com see - http://prntscr.com/3fouza

Take the case of this - https://www.mywot.com/en/forum/46162-xhamster-com
this is a porn website with a good reputation live link was enabled and only after we requested
admin to disable the live link then it was disabled.
[/quote]
I totally agree!



redblade7
Posts: 520
Joined: Thu Oct 31, 2013 10:18 am

RE: If You Could Pick Three Things About WOT That Could Be Impro

Post by redblade7 » Sat May 03, 2014 11:46 pm

THOSE SYMANTEC TRUST SEALS!!!

Plenty of malicious and suspicious Web sites have Symantec Trust Seals which give them high ratings no matter how much we flood the comments with problems.

Right now I am being spammed by a Symantec-endorsed swinger dating service called "Instabang" (or Fling.com). This site did a fake signup with a fake password and since then sends me 6 or so pornographic e-mails a day about how "T1ght P- wants to talk to you" and loaded with tracking links which claim to be social networking pages. I have been sending them to Spamcop over the past few days


See https://www.mywot.com/scorecard/fling.com to see the same exact complaints against this Symantec-endorsed operation.

Get rid of the Symantec Trust Seals and make WOT ratings entirely based on user reviews and spam blacklists.

drsumit
Posts: 1584
Joined: Sun Jan 05, 2014 5:15 pm

RE: If You Could Pick Three Things About WOT That Could Be Impro

Post by drsumit » Sun May 04, 2014 12:51 am

<quote user="redblade7">
THOSE SYMANTEC TRUST SEALS!!!

Plenty of malicious and suspicious Web sites have Symantec Trust Seals which give them high ratings no matter how much we flood the comments with problems.

Right now I am being spammed by a Symantec-endorsed swinger dating service called "Instabang" (or Fling.com). This site did a fake signup with a fake password and since then sends me 6 or so pornographic e-mails a day about how "T1ght P- wants to talk to you" and loaded with tracking links which claim to be social networking pages. I have been sending them to Spamcop over the past few days


See https://www.mywot.com/scorecard/fling.com to see the same exact complaints against this Symantec-endorsed operation.

Get rid of the Symantec Trust Seals and make WOT ratings entirely based on user reviews and spam blacklists.
[/quote]
Being a trusted source How does symantec trust seal influence reputation ?I have seen many payday websites with symantec trust seal With red rating from wot.

redblade7
Posts: 520
Joined: Thu Oct 31, 2013 10:18 am

RE: If You Could Pick Three Things About WOT That Could Be Impro

Post by redblade7 » Sun May 04, 2014 1:26 am

the automatic banning of thumbs up/down on sites with varying ratings should stop too

alphacentauri
Posts: 3291
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2009 12:52 pm

RE: If You Could Pick Three Things About WOT That Could Be Impro

Post by alphacentauri » Sun May 04, 2014 2:53 am

My suggestion would be to have overall trust be a different scale than individual measures. So to rate a site, there would be the usual bar graph for overall trust. But all other measures would be yes/no. What is 40% child safe supposed to mean? What is 60% malware/spyware supposed to mean?

Right now the only measure we rate are overall trust and child-safety, but they are averaged together for the final score. That gives a number that doesn't accurately reflect either in many cases.

A site can be completely trustworthy yet completely unsafe for children. And a site can be untrustworthy but of no particular danger to children.

I would have a bar graph instead of the colored donut for overall trust, just as we rate on a bar scale. Then I would have individual colored dots for areas of concern. I would like to rate overall trustworthiness on a scale, and click yes/no to indicate that there are concerns for issues like child safety, financial safety, privacy safety, malware safety, ethical business practices, and reliable source of factual information.

So let's take that perennial problem site, the Church of Scientology. I would chose an overall rating on a 0-100 scale for overall trust. Then I would click yes/no on concerns about inaccurate information, financial risk, child safety,, etc. When someone loaded the site, instead of a colored donut, they would see a "thermometer" for trust, then colored dots if a significant number of raters of significant reliability raised concerns in those areas, as a way of indicating why a site might not have a high rating. An additional dot would show that a site does not have many people rating and therefore would not be able to achieve top trust scores.

If any of that makes sense :)

drsumit
Posts: 1584
Joined: Sun Jan 05, 2014 5:15 pm

RE: If You Could Pick Three Things About WOT That Could Be Impro

Post by drsumit » Sun May 04, 2014 3:40 am

<quote user="alphacentauri">
My suggestion would be to have overall trust be a different scale than individual measures. So to rate a site, there would be the usual bar graph for overall trust. But all other measures would be yes/no. What is 40% child safe supposed to mean? What is 60% malware/spyware supposed to mean?

Right now the only measure we rate are overall trust and child-safety, but they are averaged together for the final score. That gives a number that doesn't accurately reflect either in many cases.

A site can be completely trustworthy yet completely unsafe for children. And a site can be untrustworthy but of no particular danger to children.

I would have a bar graph instead of the colored donut for overall trust, just as we rate on a bar scale. Then I would have individual colored dots for areas of concern. I would like to rate overall trustworthiness on a scale, and click yes/no to indicate that there are concerns for issues like child safety, financial safety, privacy safety, malware safety, ethical business practices, and reliable source of factual information.

If any of that makes sense :)
[/quote]

Bar Graph like this - http://prntscr.com/3fzpjd ?

I agree with you - 40% child safe or 60% malicious site doesn't work that good.
A bar scale with special concern on child safety or other factors can better symbolize what actually that site is.
One more point I would like to raise is many wot members rating only based on blacklist. I think we need to change
that because often a site which was previously compromised is now clean but still listed in blacklist - many members
will continue to mark that site down even though now its clean. I am not saying the site should not be penalized for being
in the blacklist but we should not blindly rate only on blacklists. Your thoughts ?

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests