Mass Rating Tool

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

0

Post by NoScams » Thu Feb 07, 2013 4:08 am

0

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

RE: Mass Rating Tool

Post by Jazspeak » Thu Feb 07, 2013 6:56 am

<quote user="noscams">
"...would simply not disclose what leads me to my opinion..."
[/quote]

Is that why you haven't provided evidence to support your assertions about Myxt and me? Given your errors of judgement about Myxt and me, I can only say that I am not impressed by your desire for anonymity when using the MRT.

marco2981
Posts: 2500
Joined: Mon Feb 07, 2011 6:55 am

RE: Mass Rating Tool

Post by marco2981 » Thu Feb 07, 2013 9:16 am

<quote user="noscams">
MyWot is merely about an opinion. Nobody has to provide to anything, and in fact ratings are totally anonymous. In my opinion hxxp://www.nikeshoxoutlets-shoes.com is not an authorized Nike site. I would simply not disclose what leads me to my opinion to such site operators for them to make them appear more legit to me.
[/quote]

I'm for sure the person that makes the biggest errors (but if you PM i will "reinvestigate" and i'm always ready to correct my errors. I agree that is not required to disclose what leads you to say it's a scam. Most of the times I do not provide "evidences" if i say this site is a scam. But if you ask me why i did say that, i can provide those evidence, that could be a simple screen take the day i affirmed the site was a scam.

Your example

nikeshoxoutlets-shoes.net Counterfeit goods scam - Unauthorized Nike reseller - Fake trust seals

IP: 173.234.55.151

Other sites: guccioutlets-onlines.com, guccis-outlet-online.com, guccisoutletonlines.com, guccisoutletsales.net, nike-shoxshoesoutlet.com, nikeshox-outletsshoes.com, nikeshoxoutlets-shoes.com
These are all scams.

___________________________________________

But sometimes, like mentioned before we had owners (not like these) that wanted to correct errors and do the right thing.

___________________________________________

I'm not able to read what i did write, hope you're able to understand.
I have sight problems and it's really hard for me to read. For this reason i did stop rating sites and using the MRT, at least as long as i'm 100% ok.

User avatar
Myxt
Posts: 4151
Joined: Sat Mar 05, 2011 6:18 am

RE: Mass Rating Tool

Post by Myxt » Fri Feb 08, 2013 7:31 am

<quote user="noscams">
MyWot is merely about an opinion. Nobody has to provide to anything, and in fact ratings are totally anonymous. In my opinion hXXp://www .nikeshoxoutlets-shoes.com is not an authorized Nike site. I would simply not disclose what leads me to my opinion to such site operators for them to make them appear more legit to me.
[/quote]

Yes, WoT is about opinion. Even with strong evidence, the rating decision is ultimately an opinion.

Nobody has to provide to anything - true. And I can see the possibility that a savvy scammer could try use that evidence to disguise his site as legitimate. However ...

Someone who has merely been following bad advice may decide to improve. Many people have been led to believe that dumping links and spun text everywhere possible is called advertising. Those who fooled them into thinking this would make them rich are the real scammers.

Contrast this with a serious scammer who is very clear about his nature and goals. He will whine, argue, and threaten, but he will keep doing what he always does because it's a formula that works for however short a time - then to be rebranded and reissued.

WoT has many tech savvy people and a great many eyes. What one overlooks, another sees. So the possibility that a serious scammer, once noticed, can successfully cloak his operations is nearly zero.

WoT is also like a library of evidence. If someone wants to make a legal case of a red rating, which scenario is most defensible: that we do, or do not, have evidence? Or if he simply wants to raise a stink on the web, which of those two scenarios makes his complaints seem justified?

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

Evidence

Post by c۞g » Fri Feb 08, 2013 12:34 pm

The lack of evidence makes for a poor opinion.
Merely saying Scammer or Spammer makes the author appear likewise.

[url=https://www.mywot.com/faq/website/scorecard#howtocomment t=_self]Supporting evidence enforces the opinion[/url]
  • Be objective and truthful. Useful comments include not only whether you liked or disliked a site, service or product, but also why. Please comment according to your real experiences: you are responsible for your comments.
  • Differentiate between the technical safety of the site and the content
  • Support your assertions or statements
    (links help)
  • Try to keep it short, but focused
    (no long posts with copy/paste gibberish)
Currently WOT allows a MAX post length of 20000 characters
At the 80 character per line, that's 250 lines of text.
Makes for an overly long comment

Personally I would like to see this reduced to 1/5
4000 characters at 80/line is 50 lines of text, which should suffice any "long explanation"

Guest

RE: Evidence

Post by Guest » Fri Feb 08, 2013 12:53 pm

<quote user="c۞g">
Currently WOT allows a MAX post length of 20000 characters
At the 80 character per line, that's 250 lines of text.
Makes for an overly long comment

Personally I would like to see this reduced to 1/5
4000 characters at 80/line is 50 lines of text, which should suffice any "long explanation"
[/quote]

Depends on what you put in the comment as spam email headers and evidence can take this over the 20000 limit.


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

RE: Evidence

Post by c۞g » Fri Feb 08, 2013 2:13 pm

<quote user="issviews">
Depends on what you put in the comment as spam email headers and evidence can take this over the 20000 limit.
[/quote]
Are multiple email headers really required to substantiate a non-spoofed originating IP and/or target domain?
If so.. then screen captures could be taken, the images compiled into 1 graphic and the link provided into the comment.

Guest

RE: Evidence

Post by Guest » Fri Feb 08, 2013 2:48 pm

<quote user="c۞g">
Are multiple email headers really required to substantiate a non-spoofed originating IP and/or target domain?
If so.. then screen captures could be taken, the images compiled into 1 graphic and the link provided into the comment.
[/quote]

Nope, I ran into this problem posting one email with headers and content. I had to butcher it to keep the evidence there :( Admittedly this is not a daily practice (posting email evidence) as it can be very time consuming (even doing this through graphic links) if you do this on every spam email. I just did it for that one which I suspected would be contested by the site owner.

I know the majority of comments are short, some go into a few lines and occasionally there will be the need to utilise the full 20000 character limit which is why I don't feel shortening this is a viable option. It's not like that feature is being abused on scorecards IMO, or have I seen this happening.


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

RE: Mass Rating Tool

Post by alphacentauri » Sat Feb 09, 2013 2:24 am

I agree that having a place to discuss nuts and bolts is useful. For instance, a lot of us receive a constant barrage of joe-job spams. We want to identify them so as to not report the wrong entity or accuse them of sending spam if they weren't responsible. Usually it's obvious that an email was not sent by the owner of the site "advertised," but sometimes it's not so clear. We compare notes to come to consensus. But we don't want our criteria for making a determination public, because we'd be schooling the spammers in how to make it more difficult for us.

On the other hand, WOT is a special case. Because it seeks to rate good sites as well as bad ones, because of the crowdsourcing, because of WOT's philosophy of giving users a lot of latitude about how leniently or harshly to rate sites, because WOT hopes to eventually have a high market penetrance, it has to be very, very transparent. It's the only way to keep a lid on the libelous comments about sites being forced to pay for good ratings.

Those of us who want to have private discussions just have to do it elsewhere.

MysteryFCM
Posts: 4912
Joined: Mon Jul 14, 2008 4:47 pm

RE: Mass Rating Tool

Post by MysteryFCM » Sat Feb 09, 2013 6:38 pm

Folks, please keep this on topic, and friendly.

Any discussions regarding individual sites, should not be done in this thread, but in their own threads (or a new thread in the appropriate forum, where such a thread does not already exist).

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests