Mass Rating Tool

spectre
Posts: 7922
Joined: Sun May 03, 2009 10:43 pm

RE: Mass Rating Tool

Post by spectre » Mon Feb 04, 2013 6:33 pm

<quote user="javelina">
Oh! I'm sorry! I see what happened.

SAMI
You should probably look at the link in everyone's profile pages, about reputation. I just happened to click on it now for the first time in awhile, and arrived here, with the only thing visible on the screen being your announcement of 4 Jan 2013 about the ceiling of 10,000 set on reputation points displayed. That is why I entered what must have appeared to be a non-sequitur comment in this MRT thread.

[/quote]

I dont see a link on my profile to reputation, where is this please?

Javelina
Posts: 221
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2010 5:34 pm

RE: Mass Rating Tool

Post by Javelina » Mon Feb 04, 2013 9:27 pm

<quote user="shazza">I dont see a link on my profile to reputation, where is this please?[/quote]
I was referring to our profiles, where it says:
* Your activity score and the number of ratings are updated daily.

The link URL is

Code: Select all

http://www.mywot.com/wiki/Activity_scores

with anchor text "activity score".

But I was wrong! Our profiles link correctly to Wiki. The error is in the Wiki, in section 2 of that page. I will change it now, as I don't need to bother Sami. (We can edit mywot Wiki, but not the main website's front-end or user interface ;o)

I'm sorry for the confusion, for troubling you, shazza, and for making such a mess!

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

RE: Mass Rating Tool

Post by NoScams » Tue Feb 05, 2013 12:47 am

<quote user="jazspeak">
Not at all. If two WOT members want to hold a private conversation then that is fine by me but I don't like discussing sites and/or their owners in places where they can't defend themselves.
[/quote]

Your answer doesn't make too much sense:

> two WOT members ... hold a private conversation ... is fine

And three is not fine?

>where they can't defend themselves.

There is still an open forum to do that.

spectre
Posts: 7922
Joined: Sun May 03, 2009 10:43 pm

RE: Mass Rating Tool

Post by spectre » Tue Feb 05, 2013 1:26 am

<quote user="javelina">
I'm sorry for the confusion, for troubling you, shazza, and for making such a mess!
[/quote]

It was no trouble, I just thought I'd missed something :-)

Jazspeak
Posts: 7295
Joined: Fri Oct 17, 2008 4:20 pm

RE: Mass Rating Tool

Post by Jazspeak » Tue Feb 05, 2013 8:23 am

<quote user="noscams">
"...three is not fine?"
[/quote]

Three's a crowd, and any three-way conversation is not private. If three members want to be secretive then there are plenty of other places for that and WOT doesn't need to be involved in such sneakiness.

<quote user="noscams">
"...an open forum to do that."
[/quote]

Hardly, since the site owners would not be party to the secrecy of others and might not know that they need to defend themselves.

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

RE: Mass Rating Tool

Post by NoScams » Tue Feb 05, 2013 9:56 am

<quote user="jazspeak">
Three's a crowd, and any three-way conversation is not private. If three members want to be secretive then there are plenty of other places for that and WOT doesn't need to be involved in such sneakiness.[/quote]

So why a scammer needs to defend himself? Why scammers needs to be invloved in scam-finding-tactics - which can be used to make their scams harder to detect.

What you do is simply aiding scammers by making it harder to track them.


Jazspeak
Posts: 7295
Joined: Fri Oct 17, 2008 4:20 pm

RE: Mass Rating Tool

Post by Jazspeak » Tue Feb 05, 2013 12:20 pm

<quote user="noscams">
"...why a scammer needs to defend himself?"
[/quote]

What nonsense, NoScams. Not all site owners are scammers.

<quote user="noscams">
"What you do is simply aiding scammers by making it harder to track them."
[/quote]

More nonsense, NoScams. If you think that you have evidence that I aid scammers then let's see that evidence IN PUBLIC.

User avatar
Myxt
Posts: 4146
Joined: Sat Mar 05, 2011 6:18 am

RE: Mass Rating Tool

Post by Myxt » Tue Feb 05, 2013 11:46 pm

@NoScams - perhaps you have heard of being falsely accused? "Innocent until proven guilty" is an important principle. In this age of deception, not all is what it seems on the surface. Some site owners who initially appeared suspicious have proven themselves otherwise. Some who were suspicious forged ahead and worked with us to clean up their act - something they may not have done under your plan.

In addition, those who are in fact guilty often spread as much falsehood as possible about WoT. They do not need more ammunition from citing back-room deals. All they have to do is pretend it happened that way. WoT should be transparent.

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

RE: Mass Rating Tool

Post by NoScams » Wed Feb 06, 2013 2:05 am

<quote user="myxt"> WoT should be transparent.[/quote]

For a starter, site ratings are totally anonymous and can't be traced back.

I appreciate that you have a soft heart for scammers. I do not though. I do not need prove to beyond the information I collected from the site. But feel free to invite i.e. abercrombiespascheres-fr.com to have a meaningful discussion of their line of products. But I won't join that discussion, and why I think it's a scam.





Jazspeak
Posts: 7295
Joined: Fri Oct 17, 2008 4:20 pm

RE: Mass Rating Tool

Post by Jazspeak » Wed Feb 06, 2013 8:05 am

<quote user="noscams">
"...do not need prove..."
[/quote]

Well, NoScams, you have really shot yourself in the foot this time. Myxt is not "...soft on scammers...", and if you are unwilling to provide evidence IN PUBLIC to support your claims about sites and their owners then you are not somebody who should have access to the MRT.

Your claims, NoScams, re Myxt and me are sure signs of paranoia, and it would probably be a good idea for you to go and lie down in a darkened room until your paranoia subsides.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests