The misguided view on Spam!

User avatar
Myxt
Posts: 2032
Joined: Sat Mar 05, 2011 6:18 am

RE: The adjusted view on Spam

Post by Myxt » Mon Sep 05, 2016 11:09 pm


So it's fine if I red-rate a spam that appears here, that advertises counterfeit designer products, fake drugs, or other scams/illegal content, but be careful not to victimize a legitimate site that may have been themselves victimized by a rogue advertiser?


If I may, I would add: not to retaliate against a legitimate site whose owner (sans idiot marketer) was merely "testing the waters" by dropping a live link in a single post, as if to say "Hello, this is my site."

Typically in such cases, someone tells the owner "don't do that" and/or "disable the link", and the owner cooperates - itself a mark of legitimacy. There is so much shoddy marketing advice that discovery and implementation of best practices is often by accident.

User avatar
NotBuyingIt
Posts: 3251
Joined: Fri Mar 11, 2011 6:21 pm

RE: The adjusted view on Spam

Post by NotBuyingIt » Tue Sep 06, 2016 12:27 am


If I may, I would add: not to retaliate against a legitimate site whose owner (sans idiot marketer) was merely "testing the waters" by dropping a live link in a single post, as if to say "Hello, this is my site."

Typically in such cases, someone tells the owner "don't do that" and/or "disable the link", and the owner cooperates - itself a mark of legitimacy. There is so much shoddy marketing advice that discovery and implementation of best practices is often by accident.

Clearly, the WOT admin has pointed out that users should not rate a site adversely even if a site-owner ignores their advice about the guidelines and resists making his/her live links inactive. That would be retaliation. See the "Guidelines Recalibration" thread at https://www.mywot.com/forum/63682-guideline-calibration
I believe that my initial comment of 28 January in that thread has been sustained:

Members of the users' community have written that "violations" of the guidelines (or the obnoxious conduct of some site-owners in the forum) reduce their trust in a site, so they are contributing their sincere opinions. My attitude is concurrent with the team's point of view: A site's reputation should reflect the broader public opinion as WOT originally intended its service — This is a very important technical issue. The staff is actually in a much better position to address scorecard manipulation, but private reports of suspicious conduct are certainly important.

Not every single sincerely held belief is appropriate for rating the ethical component to trustworthiness.




User avatar
alphacentauri
Posts: 1670
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2009 12:52 pm

RE: The misguided view on Spam!

Post by alphacentauri » Tue Sep 06, 2016 3:32 am

Remember that joe-jobbing is a common way to reduce the credibility of those who are fighting spam. Just because a link was placed in the forum doesn't mean the website owner was responsible. You have to check each one to see if it is likely to be real spam or a joe job.

Guest

RE: The misguided view on Spam!

Post by Guest » Tue Sep 06, 2016 4:32 am

@the end =
Nothing had changed
No one should tell a member how to rate a site, but is up to that member to be truthful for his or her rating
Be responsible with your rating and comment
Thanks!

User avatar
Kraftwerk
Posts: 4019
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2009 12:30 pm

RE: The misguided view on Spam!

Post by Kraftwerk » Wed Sep 28, 2016 8:47 am

Conclusion: We all believe that spamming is bad and should be rated as such. But don't forget to make clear it's no joe job.

CarlosSalcedo
Posts: 1
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2018 1:12 am

Re: The misguided view on Spam!

Post by CarlosSalcedo » Mon Sep 10, 2018 1:30 am

Is interesting the problem with the spam I need help for my blog of Amarres de amor for combat the spam If somebody can help me thanks.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests