Suggestion: "Not applicable" ratings for Vendor Reliability and Privacy

Seattle John
Posts: 42
Joined: Sun Mar 30, 2008 5:48 pm

Simple solution

Post by Seattle John » Wed May 07, 2008 7:05 pm

If you feel a site should have a N/A in one (or more) fields, just skip those fields, and only rate those you feel are applicable. I seldom rate a site in ALL fields. I often skip the privacy field until I have a reason to lean towards my red crayola, or the green one. I actually was on a site that recommended that I give them my email address AND password so they could check out my contacts list ! Needless to say, I did give them a privacy rating.

User avatar
Posts: 12
Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2007 5:06 am

Not that simple...

Post by PikadudeNo1 » Thu May 08, 2008 12:50 am

Thing is, scam artists will use irrelevant ratings to make their exposers look like the scam artists, as with Quackwatch. Quackwatch's Vendor Reliability rating has risen to 65 since I started this thread, but it shouldn't have one of those ratings at all.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests