WOT miss used as "I don't agree with the website's ideas"

george Christian
Posts: 2
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 9:36 pm

WOT miss used as "I don't agree with the website's ideas"

Post by george Christian » Tue Mar 19, 2013 9:36 pm

I've seen people using WOT as means of expressing the disagreement on certain ideas by voting LOW Trustfulness (or other LOW's).

In order to make WOT a trustful ranking system, as it's meant to be, I propose to have optional ranking buttons for people's appreciative needs, as "LIKE" and "DISLIKE" or "AGREE" and "DISAGREE".

Like this ranking "Trustfulness" will not be confused with ranking "Likeliness".

Best!

NotBuyingIt
Posts: 6548
Joined: Fri Mar 11, 2011 6:21 pm

RE: WOT miss used as "I don't agree with the website's ideas"

Post by NotBuyingIt » Tue Mar 19, 2013 10:50 pm

I've seen people using WOT as means of expressing the disagreement on certain ideas by voting LOW Trustfulness (or other
LOW's). "
\

@[url=http://www.mywot.com/en/user/4843176 t=_self]george Christian[/url], Welcome to the WOT users' community Forums. Where you twice used the word Trustfulness; did you really mean Trustworthiness instead?

When you read enough scorecard comments, you will find that some community members explicitly state that they may despise a website but think that it is technically safe. On the whole, I doubt if the majority of community members unknowingly conflate trustworthiness with affection.

When you read enough Forum discussions, you will find that trustworthiness has other significant aspects in addition to technical safety. In certain circumstances, for example, the category "Hateful or questionable content" is rightly used to justify adverse ratings.

When you become more familiar with the more active community members, you will notice that some of them hold high standards for websites. Most likely, they express animosity towards a website because they find fault with it for failing their standards – which is the opposite of the suspicions that you have expressed.

Not surprisingly, very popular sites typically have very favorable ratings but very unpopular sites typically have adverse ratings. The ratings of practically unknown sites may often be unreliable. If you have good reasons to suspect that a website's reputation is mis-rated, you may begin a thread in the Reputation discussions forum about the site. (Before creating a new thread, I suggest that you read enough of similar threads to see the best ways to present your reasons.) When a site it brought to the attention of the active community members, its reputation may sometimes change rapidly, for better or worse.

Edith Lincoln
Posts: 20
Joined: Fri Feb 08, 2013 2:23 am

RE: WOT miss used as "I don't agree with the website's ideas"

Post by Edith Lincoln » Tue Mar 19, 2013 11:57 pm

There is a category for "Hateful or questionable content" and for "Ethical issues" in the comments. Am I supposed to give KKK.com a good rating because it has a nice layout and is easy to use? A creationist site might appear child friendly, but the content is intentionally misleading. There is nothing wrong with rating a site as you see fit. There is often a good reason why a site receives a poor rating but has positive comments. The ratings will generally be from users with fewer than 10 ratings who only showed up to help their pet site or agenda. They are obviously confused as to how much comments matter to the ratings.

Kraftwerk
Posts: 7981
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2009 12:30 pm

RE: WOT miss used as "I don't agree with the website's ideas"

Post by Kraftwerk » Wed Mar 20, 2013 9:18 am

<quote user="edith lincoln">
There is a category for "Hateful or questionable content" and for "Ethical issues" in the comments. Am I supposed to give KKK.com a good rating because it has a nice layout and is easy to use? A creationist site might appear child friendly, but the content is intentionally misleading. There is nothing wrong with rating a site as you see fit. There is often a good reason why a site receives a poor rating but has positive comments. The ratings will generally be from users with fewer than 10 ratings who only showed up to help their pet site or agenda. They are obviously confused as to how much comments matter to the ratings.
[/quote]

Does the site harm anyone, if yes you should rate it bad. I know that those sites often ask not to tolerate others and that is harming but if it doesnt there 's no need to rate it bad

Edith Lincoln
Posts: 20
Joined: Fri Feb 08, 2013 2:23 am

RE: WOT miss used as "I don't agree with the website's ideas"

Post by Edith Lincoln » Wed Mar 20, 2013 10:19 am

If a site gives misleading information, then it should be considered harmful. At the very least it should be rated poor because of ethical reasons. Racist, sexist, homophobic, unproven "scientific" claims, or other misleading sites are harmful to someone looking for information on the internet. Any site should be allowed to exist (as long as it contains legal content of course , no child porn etc.) but the content and usefulness can be rated. If a child is attempting to find information on evolution, astronomy, physics, biology, history, atomic theory, or medicine and looks at a site that has a good rating and is filled with lies and intentionally misleading information, what is the use of rating? WOT allows more than just a thumbs up or down review.

Kraftwerk
Posts: 7981
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2009 12:30 pm

RE: WOT miss used as "I don't agree with the website's ideas"

Post by Kraftwerk » Wed Mar 20, 2013 10:47 am

Agree on the racist and homophobic etc part.

But only if it gives information you disagreee with??? That means, also opinions!

And "lies" is scam. That's something differently

Guest

Off topic

Post by Guest » Wed Mar 20, 2013 1:10 pm

<quote user="kraftwerk">
Agree on the racist and homophobic etc part.

But only if it gives information you disagreee with??? That means, also opinions!

And "lies" is scam. That's something differently
[/quote]

Ok dear Power Plant, you are starting to scare me. . . Maybe you have been replaced by a pod person.

You seem to have become a nicer, gentler, and have more patience.

Guess the Power Plant went Green.

Like it, keep it up.
Heidi-Ann

Kraftwerk
Posts: 7981
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2009 12:30 pm

RE: Off topic

Post by Kraftwerk » Wed Mar 20, 2013 1:18 pm

<quote user="scientific frontline">
Ok dear Power Plant, you are starting to scare me. . . Maybe you have been replaced by a pod person.

You seem to have become a nicer, gentler, and have more patience.

Guess the Power Plant went Green.

Like it, keep it up.
Heidi-Ann
[/quote]

:D I knew that it might trigger such a reaction :D

Don't worry, i'm the same ;) Just need always small reasons for attacking at least.

Guest

RE: WOT miss used as "I don't agree with the website's ideas"

Post by Guest » Wed Mar 20, 2013 10:05 pm

Hello =

@ Heidi and Kraft

Two of my favorite W.O.T users

It makes me quite happy to see both of you goinggreen,:-}

My best regards !

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

RE: WOT miss used as "I don't agree with the website's ideas"

Post by c۞g » Wed Mar 20, 2013 11:07 pm

I've seen people using WOT as means of expressing the disagreement
I certainly hope so; that is what WOT is all about.
Trust... if you do not agree with a site's content chances are you do not trust it; trust is subjective and people have [url=https://www.mywot.com/blog/differing-opinions t=_self]differing opinions[/url]

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests