User rating and comment

Post Reply
jpzip
Posts: 26
Joined: Wed Apr 16, 2014 6:48 am

RE: User rating and comment

Post by jpzip » Fri May 09, 2014 10:46 am

DrSumit: This can be implemented with the optional choice - keep my rating hidden for those who are uncomfortable showing their rating
Is this needed? Wouldn't it be more straightforward if the public comment & public rating go always hand-in-hand?

If one wants her/his contribution to stay non-public, then the solution is not to leave the comment but just to rate.

Am I missing something with this simplification?

NotBuyingIt
Posts: 6547
Joined: Fri Mar 11, 2011 6:21 pm

RE: User rating and comment

Post by NotBuyingIt » Fri May 09, 2014 3:17 pm

<quote user="satchman">The point being is that under WOT's current logarithmic system, it is almost impossible to rate down a popular site that has had years of ratings, simply because it has been rated by thousands to millions of people. [/quote]\
&nbsp;
I am aware that the registered members' activity scores are logarithmic, but activity is not part of a user's weighting and so does not influence a site's reputation. What part of WOT's website rating system is logarithmic?

Guest

RE: User rating and comment

Post by Guest » Fri May 09, 2014 4:32 pm

Am I missing something with this simplification?

Yes, is too simplistic

CoG, raised some valid concerns

https://www.mywot.com/en/forum/46158-user-rating-and-comment?comment=249770#comment-249770

You did not answered them clearly

https://www.mywot.com/en/forum/46158-user-rating-and-comment?comment=249786#comment-249786

Turning back the clock is always one option, but one should bear in mind that the "web literacy/savviness" (in the lack of a better word) has increased greatly since 2006 when the core of WOT was created

If the users of 2014 are more savvy about, safety on the internet than, those back 06, we would not be having this discussion because there would not be a need for WOT

If anything, most users are younger and less knowledgeable in particular with the, "whatever attitude" they live fast and do not have time or care, in their majority to engage in something so simple as to make a stronger password .......... and change it regularly

Back in 2006, must users were engaged in one way or another with computers essentials, nowadays they have become regular consumers with little or nor knowledge about computers per se, but are great at texting, talking or engaging in the social media, many of them are barely in their teens with children of their own

Do you believe that, they have time to know what is scare-ware from malware?

"The rating categories and reputation should be enough to "see why" a domain is trustworthy or not"

https://www.mywot.com/en/forum/46158-user-rating-and-comment?comment=249770#comment-249770

I fully agree with this; if you see a red light, while driving, you stop and then wonder why is taking so long, but the first thing you do is to stop

That what is WOT a trust based traffic light, for those who do not know [ that include us ] the dangers on the internet

The open question is that if one decides to post open-ended comments what other things need to be disclosed so that the comment can be interpreted understandably in conjunction with the rating.



https://www.mywot.com/en/forum/46158-user-rating-and-comment?comment=249786#comment-249786

You already said it, IF one decides to post ............

In which case the Dr, already gave you the answer

This can be implemented with the optional choice

I keep forgetting the username of the member that was tracked down, and paid a heavy fine and in the process have to leave WOT

So far all my ratings have been, my personal opinion of a site and protected by the laws of the country, in which I live, but what about those whose opinions can be fined in their country, as libelous?

I once rated in red the site of an owner that will sell water with some other product, and used to make claims that were not supported, by any medical or scientific research, well I gave my opinion and we discussed it, in the forum, but that was not enough he went on to post in my board, messages that dealt with the location where I lived and that was very dangerous
I am a very enthusiastic member of WOT that cares greatly about the safety of others, starting with my own and this new project may violate the safety of those who chose to rate in anonymity

We can go back to the original idea of WOT which I favor or look for another alternative, which begs the question as to why, but in my opinion this experiment, will never work

Best regards
edit -

User avatar
Myxt
Posts: 4145
Joined: Sat Mar 05, 2011 6:18 am

RE: User rating and comment

Post by Myxt » Sat May 10, 2014 5:57 am

Personally, I don't see the point in having options in WoT user profiles to divulge everything about oneself including his web site and social accounts. WoT is not social media where one can go to be kewl and get noticed. There is no "SEO" or advertising value to this information because the search engines cannot see it - and that's a good thing.

Looking at some WoT profiles, it is evident that the owner thinks this is yet another place to extend his greatness; and this window dressing may strongly suggest to spammers that WoT is yet another place to ply their trade.

If we want anonymity, this would be a great place to start - from the beginning. It's far less intrusive and risky to disclose ratings by anonymous user "ZOD" than ratings by "Sean Deaux" of Macon Georgia, twitter.com/SDeaux, seandeaux.hurtme.com.

drsumit
Posts: 1584
Joined: Sun Jan 05, 2014 5:15 pm

RE: User rating and comment

Post by drsumit » Sat May 10, 2014 7:48 am

<quote user="myxt">
Personally, I don't see the point in having options in WoT user profiles to divulge everything about oneself including his web site and social accounts. WoT is not social media where one can go to be kewl and get noticed. There is no "SEO" or advertising value to this information because the search engines cannot see it - and that's a good thing.

Looking at some WoT profiles, it is evident that the owner thinks this is yet another place to extend his greatness; and this window dressing may strongly suggest to spammers that WoT is yet another place to ply their trade.

If we want anonymity, this would be a great place to start - from the beginning. It's far less intrusive and risky to disclose ratings by anonymous user "ZOD" than ratings by "Sean Deaux" of Macon Georgia, twitter.com/SDeaux, seandeaux.hurtme.com.
[/quote]

I agree - if they do there are chances of repercussions and retributions from hostile site owners whose sites have been rated down.

drsumit
Posts: 1584
Joined: Sun Jan 05, 2014 5:15 pm

RE: User rating and comment

Post by drsumit » Sat May 10, 2014 8:03 am

<quote user="superhero58">
Am I missing something with this simplification?

Yes, is too simplistic

"The rating categories and reputation should be enough to "see why" a domain is trustworthy or not"

I fully agree with this; if you see a red light, while driving, you stop and then wonder why is taking so long, but the first thing you do is to stop

That what is WOT a trust based traffic light, for those who do not know [ that include us ] the dangers on the internet

The open question is that if one decides to post open-ended comments what other things need to be disclosed so that the comment can be interpreted understandably in conjunction with the rating.

https://www.mywot.com/en/forum/46158-user-rating-and-comment?comment=249786#comment-249786

You already said it, IF one decides to post ............

In which case the Dr, already gave you the answer

This can be implemented with the optional choice

So far all my ratings have been, my personal opinion of a site and protected by the laws of the country, in which I live, but what about those whose opinions can be fined in their country, as libelous?

I once rated in red the site of an owner that will sell water with some other product, and used to make claims that were not supported, by any medical or scientific research, well I gave my opinion and we discussed it, in the forum, but that was not enough he went on to post in my board, messages that dealt with the location where I lived and that was very dangerous
I am a very enthusiastic member of WOT that cares greatly about the safety of others, starting with my own and this new project may violate the safety of those who chose to rate in anonymity

We can go back to the original idea of WOT which I favor or look for another alternative, which begs the question as to why, but in my opinion this experiment, will never work

Best regards
edit -
[/quote]

@ jpzip
important points raised by superhero!
I believe people should not be forced to show their rating - I agree with superhero - there are many site owners who may consider taking legal action against people posting negative comment on their scorecard when they find out their website is going to lose lot of sales based on WOT warning. In these case its better to remain anonymous Many members including me have been on the receiving end of barrage of abusive comments, name callings and what not. As superhero told about a site owner harassing him
another user redblade 7 got calls from siteowners who tracked down his phone number.

But I believe firmly you should keep this option which allows a wot reviewer to not publish his rating for everyone to see.

Even though the new design looks good but lets consider this scenario - cnet.com 5 members rate this site negatively and another 5 positively - the site remains green. Because of a rating reliability factor there will be a competition as to who is more reliable to WOT because our exact rating score is visible which used to be hidden. There are multiple factors to consider before radically changing WOT.

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

RE: User rating and comment

Post by c۞g » Sat May 10, 2014 8:38 am

<quote user="jpzip">If one wants her/his contribution to stay non-public, then the solution is not to leave the comment but just to rate.[/quote]
1]
Currently ratings are private.
Comments are mandatory when using MRT.
Are you going to allow ratings via MRT without the mandatory comment to ensure future rating privacy?

2]
Rating categories and their associated tags are not restricted to selected rating scale.
For example, one can (and people do) select both "Scam" and "Good site"
offering a bogus comment while not even rating.

If you want people to understand why a site may have earned it's reputation based upon the comments on a scorecard
then restrict comments to their associated (selected) ratings.
No rating = no rating category selectable = no ability to comment.
WOT 1 had comment categories.
WOT 2 changed from comment to rating categories - how/why could one select a rating category without rating?
It makes no sense.

green ratings (light/dark) = only 1 category to select "good site" + neutral
(this needs more tags: #useful #informative #good customer experience #child friendly)
yellow ratings = neutral + questionable
red ratings (light/dark) = neutral + questionable + negative

You do not need to implement new features, just correct the ones you already have; that is being simplistic.


drsumit
Posts: 1584
Joined: Sun Jan 05, 2014 5:15 pm

RE: User rating and comment

Post by drsumit » Sat May 10, 2014 12:30 pm

<quote user="c۞g">
1]
Currently ratings are private.
Comments are mandatory when using MRT.
Are you going to allow ratings via MRT without the mandatory comment to ensure future rating privacy?

2]
Rating categories and their associated tags are not restricted to selected rating scale.
For example, one can (and people do) select both "Scam" and "Good site"
offering a bogus comment while not even rating.

If you want people to understand why a site may have earned it's reputation based upon the comments on a scorecard
then restrict comments to their associated (selected) ratings.
No rating = no rating category selectable = no ability to comment.
WOT 1 had comment categories.
WOT 2 changed from comment to rating categories - how/why could one select a rating category without rating?
It makes no sense.

green ratings (light/dark) = only 1 category to select "good site" + neutral
(this needs more tags: #useful #informative #good customer experience #child friendly)
yellow ratings = neutral + questionable
red ratings (light/dark) = neutral + questionable + negative

You do not need to implement new features, just correct the ones you already have; that is being simplistic.
[/quote]

I agree - there are issues which needs to be rectified before changing the basic feature of wot.
. C۞g has raised some very pertinent points specially about the Mass rating tool.

NotBuyingIt
Posts: 6547
Joined: Fri Mar 11, 2011 6:21 pm

RE: User rating and comment

Post by NotBuyingIt » Sat May 10, 2014 1:13 pm

<quote user="c۞g">If you want people to understand why a site may have earned it's reputation based upon the comments on a scorecard
then restrict comments to their associated (selected) ratings.
No rating = no rating category selectable = no ability to comment.[/quote]

I strongly disagree; c۞g's argument tp ban certain comments seems farfetched to me. Scorecard comments can be every bit as germane and informative for interested readers without any accompanying ratings. The two of us have argued about this point for a long time. From my prescriptive, when I make the effort to contribute I believe that my scorecard comments may be helpful to others. I accept, of course, that WOT has the final decision to accept or reject my submissions, but I think it would be foolish to remove them.

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

RE: User rating and comment

Post by c۞g » Sat May 10, 2014 10:08 pm

<quote user="notbuyingit">The two of us have argued about this point for a long time. From my prescriptive, when I make the effort to contribute I believe that my scorecard comments may be helpful to others.[/quote]
:)

Quoting the first line of the OP: One of the common misunderstandings of a novice user and site owner is to confuse user ratings and comments.

Concerning our... arguments in the past, each of us had valid points.
That was with WOT 1 - the "old" WOT

WOT 2.0 eliminated comment categories.
Blog 11 Sep 2013: [url=https://www.mywot.com/blog/447-the-new-wot-improves-the-transparency-in-user-ratings t=_self]The new WOT improves the transparency in user ratings[/url]
  1. We wanted to add more depth to the Trustworthiness rating score by adding a new concept of "Categories" and further developing the commenting feature. Categories and comments help WOT users, and also web site owners, to better understand reasons why a website have a certain Trustworthiness rating. That enables users to then decide for themselves if the benefits of using the website outweigh the potential risks or issues.
  2. Based on the feedback, users of WOT wanted to first and foremost understand better the reasons for a website having a bad reputation. It's partially driven by the need of more information to make that personal decision regarding the site, but there is also an expectation that if someone is rating a website ‘Untrustworthy’ then they should also make an effort to explain the reason. It's a matter of fair assessment of the site and ability for the site owner to engage in dialogue with the people who have rated the site.
  3. Comments serve the same purpose as the new "Categories" feature in adding depth to the ratings, again especially for the sites that are rated Untrustworthy.
Staff explain in WOT 2 that comments and categories are specific to ratings.
I see no mention about rating-less category selection or rating-less comments

IF one is to be "silent in rating" then simply remain silent.

... and so the debate continues ...

respectfully,

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests