Mass Rating Tool

c۞g
Posts: 21225
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2009 4:02 am

RE: Mass Rating Tool

Post by c۞g » Fri Jan 18, 2013 10:14 am

<quote user="myxt">
@c۞g - try this:[/quote]

Code: Select all

function whatDev(e){
if(e.type=='mouseup'){alert('Meow!');}
else{alert('Fake mouse - yecch!')}
}

mouseup [url=https://encrypted.google.com/#hl=en&q=mouseup t=_self]?[/url] can be from the OS mouse driver OR from a Java / Perl / Python / Assembly / etc.
custom driver such as that designed for use in browser automation / remote control

If a JavaScript is run _inside_ the browser, that may "catch it"

AFAIK, if the browser is run inside an automated environment with keyboard, mouse, etc. drivers then those drivers become "native" to the browser. You could even simulate holding the mouse button down for 0.5 sec then "release" instead of a "quick click"


Guest

RE: Mass Rating Tool

Post by Guest » Fri Jan 18, 2013 1:59 pm

<quote user="c۞g">Another option would be to increase Platinum level from 10000 to 15000
which would increase capping Activity score to 15000 as well.[/quote]
But if a person can get 10000 sites rated in less than 1 month an extra 5000 would be obtained within 2 weeks. They would still be able to get MRT within roughly 4-6 weeks.

<quote user="c۞g">You mentioned CAPTCHA[/quote]
I did, although capatcha's have a very short life span (their lists of words) due to teams of human crackers who are employed to solve the catatcha, creating lists to help spammers, etc., and thier scripts get through with ease.

<quote user="c۞g">With MRT there is no CAPTCHA[/quote]
I am aware of that which makes the MRT so good to use.

<quote user="c۞g">But it could be imposed per session for x-quantity of domains.[/quote]
It could be but if the capatcha's are cracked their effectiveness will be next to zero against spambots etc., and become an inconvenience to honest human users.

Armored
Posts: 626
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2010 10:38 am

RE: Mass Rating Tool

Post by Armored » Sat Jan 19, 2013 12:38 am

<quote user="noscams">
Again, this is an assumption, but there is no intrinsic relationship.
[/quote]

"Intrinsic" denotes a definite connection 100% of the time-I didn't imply that. .I said "very difficult" to have both, not "impossible".whether it's intrinsic or not is debatable and I won't comment on that now. What I was implying though, is that rating numerous websites with the motivation of competition will increase the likely hood of inaccuracy. The two are frequently related.-that is common sense not an assumption. If you are unable to make that connection there is nothing I can do.

Also please take note of the context when I said This "competition" you speak of encourages rating with speed=less accurate. I was talking about people who rate with the wrong motive (MMORPG mentality). They are particularly susceptible to inaccurate ratings-and is also why I was shocked when you said removing that top 100 list was a bad idea. I don't have the desire to go around in circles on this topic. So if I can just ask one question and I'll leave it at that:

Do you think the rating accuracy of at least some users was negatively effected because they were rating many sites with the motivation of climbing a top 100 list?

<quote user="noscams">
I simply had to use the MRT because of the HUGE volume of counterfeit sites that pop up daily.
[/quote] No need to defend yourself here-I didn't have you in mind when I spoke about people who rate with the wrong motive. The main reason for me posting was because I strongly disagreed with it being a "bad idea" to remove that list. I'm sure you have made many valuable contributions to wot.

Armored
Posts: 626
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2010 10:38 am

Reply to a few random posts:)

Post by Armored » Sat Jan 19, 2013 1:08 am

<quote user="marco2981">
Wrong, or not true.
Inaccurate comments are misleading
[/quote] It would have been wrong or not true if I actually implied what you thought I did:P

<quote user="notbuyingit">
Who wants to type at a time like that? Sweet dreams.
[/quote] LMAO. I think what I said came across the wrong way:)

<quote user="scientific frontline">
Think I need to have a discussion with him about the difference between making comments and scoring good ratings with the misses.
Giving him an "Unsatisfactory" in vendor reliability.
[/quote]~smiles~ Just think about the part of me being "hassled" to get to bed=vendor reliability
Now that's enough on this!

NoScams
Posts: 384
Joined: Tue Jun 22, 2010 3:43 am
Contact:

RE: Mass Rating Tool

Post by NoScams » Sat Jan 19, 2013 2:11 am

<quote user="armored">
Do you think the rating accuracy of at least some users was negatively effected because they were rating many sites with the motivation of climbing a top 100 list?[/quote]

Well, maybe. You can turn it the other way round too, let me try:

Do you think the rating accuracy of at least some users was positively effected because they were rating many sites with the motivation of climbing a top 100 list?

There are too things one can do to push the ranking. Reduce accuracy by commenting on sites that are vaguely border-line OR find more sites that are clear cut 'bad'. Users of the first method should be ultimately banned and their comments be sorted out (a tedious task), or simply removed.

Armored
Posts: 626
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2010 10:38 am

RE: Mass Rating Tool

Post by Armored » Sat Jan 19, 2013 2:40 am

<quote user="noscams">
Do you think the rating accuracy of at least some users was positively effected because they were rating many sites with the motivation of climbing a top 100 list?
[/quote] Their "accuracy"? No.
I admit there was a chance more bad sites were rated red because of it-much the same way there is a chance more terrorists will be killed if you use a nuke rather than a sniper rifle. But there isn't a chance of "accuracy" increasing. It comes down to how many "good" sites one is willing to sacrifice AKA collateral damage. For me it's zero, but perhaps I'm overly conscientious :)

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

RE: Mass Rating Tool

Post by alphacentauri » Mon Jan 21, 2013 4:50 am

If it were up to me, awarding the use of the MRT would be unrelated to activity. There are very few users here who can really use it as it is intended: to give identical ratings to families of closely related fraudulent websites. Most of those people establish their reputations before coming to WOT and could be given the MRT through special request when they contact admins and establish their identities. That's basically how it was done at SiteAdvisor (back when anything was actually being done at SiteAdvisor) -- you contacted the admins and asked for the privilege, and they made the decision on a case-by-case basis.

MysteryFCM is a perfect example. He's rated 84 sites and is gold level based on forum activity, but I can't imagine too many other people more deserving of access to the MRT.

c۞g
Posts: 21225
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2009 4:02 am

RE: Mass Rating Tool

Post by c۞g » Mon Jan 21, 2013 7:17 am

<quote user="alphacentauri">people establish their reputations before coming to WOT and could be given the MRT through special request when they contact admins and establish their identities.[/quote]

This exists; see: [url=https://www.mywot.com/wiki/Mass_rating_tool#Special_considerations t=_self]Special considerations[/url]



Armored
Posts: 626
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2010 10:38 am

RE: Mass Rating Tool

Post by Armored » Mon Jan 21, 2013 7:43 am

<quote user="alphacentauri">
If it were up to me, awarding the use of the MRT would be unrelated to activity.
[/quote] Completely agree.

In regards to users who don't fall under the "special consideration" category, I propose a twofold requirement before a user is granted access to the MRT:

1) A minimum time period passed with an active account (6 months?) -like[url=http://www.mywot.com/en/forum/22354-mass-rating-tool?comment=181668#comment-181668 t=_self] IssViews mentioned[/url] &
2) A minimum reliability threshold should be reached, before access is granted.(40% of the overall maximum?)

Why should a "Platinum" user have access to the MRT if their reliability is in the toilet?
It would be up to Admin where they set the minimum thresholds for both requirements. One thing is certain though. . the current system based on "activity" should be replaced. .


Guest

RE: Mass Rating Tool

Post by Guest » Mon Jan 21, 2013 8:37 pm

The very first changes I would like to see is admin add a field in the MRT that would link to the forum post that discussed the reason for the rating. An additional comment would be optional.

Since almost all MRT ratings do have a related forum thread, this would be more informative and may cause less disputes and prevent new threads regarding a domain.

There should always have a thread to any MRT rating, without a URL the MRT would reject the rating.

Forum threads are more informative thenn a simple comment.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], JamesVet and 4 guests