Why is tracking positive/neutral?

[Sami]

<quote user="apollo702">
That would definitely cut the confusion
[/quote]

The two groups are combined, because there's only one positive category and it makes no sense to have a separate group for that. As far as I can tell, this doesn't cause that much confusion, and it greatly simplifies the category voting as some of the neutral categories can also apply when the user considers the site good.

I fear that the WOT team is stuck and they are going to dig in their heels.

I'm not sure why this causes such strong emotions in you, but just because we won't change a minor detail in the user interface to your liking doesn't mean we're "stuck". We chose to group the categories this way because according to our statistics, this is the best option for both usability and the quality of category votes.

[c۞g]

<quote user="sami">The two groups are combined, because there's only one positive category and it makes no sense to have a separate group for that. [/quote]

Yes, the positive group only has 1 rating category.
People have requested to bring back former comment categories as rating categories:

• Useful/informative
• Good customer experience

to offer better reason why the domain may be a 'good site'

Then it would make sense to split the Neutral group from the Positive group as positive would contain 3 categories to select from.

<quote user="sami">... some of the neutral categories can also apply when the user considers the site good.[/quote]
Tracking people's browsing habits is not a "good quality" for any domain no matter the excuse. People are forced to accept privacy invasion in exchange for other services the domain may offer, as examples: Google, Facebook, and Twitter immediately come to mind. Then there are URL shorteners which not only "track" but are also heavily spamvertised, why those links even appear within posts made in these forums and since the source has a good reputation, the destination (red domain) is a live link.

[Satchman]

<quote user="c۞g">
The confusion lies in that Positive and Neutral rating categories are displayed in the same "box" So it appears that "online tracking" is a positive rating category.

IMHO there should be 4 category rating boxes:

1. Positive
2. Neutral
3. Questionable
4. Negative

[/quote]

Thank you for this WOT topic!

I was about to make a post on this. I agree with the four point system outlined above regarding a category rating system:

1. Positive
2. Neutral
3. Questionable
4. Negative

I believe that a tracking option to be checked if the WOT user deems necessary, should be in a newly created "Questionable" category.

Many computer users associate tracking with an apprehensive, although not necessarily bad experience. The latest versions of many browsers, such as IE 11 and Firefox 26, allow for the option to "Tell Web Sites That I do Not Want to be Tracked." Tracking can generate third-party cookies, which often do not link back to the original server, and may generate unwanted, banner-ads and, pop-ups at other unrelated sites. Adding a "Questionable" category, and placing "On-Line Tracking" in that list, gives a more realistic assessment of on-line tracking being a questionable thing than a good thing. The way WOT's On-Line tracking is currently set, it's assessing on-line tracking as a good site experience. In my view, if I want the ultimate safest and most secure approach to web-searching, I cannot see how on-line tracking is a good thing.

Satch

[Apollo702]

<quote user="sami">
The two groups are combined, because there's only one positive category and it makes no sense to have a separate group for that. As far as I can tell, this doesn't cause that much confusion, and it greatly simplifies the category voting as some of the neutral categories can also apply when the user considers the site good.



I'm not sure why this causes such strong emotions in you, but just because we won't change a minor detail in the user interface to your liking doesn't mean we're "stuck". We chose to group the categories this way because according to our statistics, this is the best option for both usability and the quality of category votes.
[/quote]


I will tell you why I am so "emotional" about this. I believe in excellence at all times in everything. I never settle for "just good enough." If you see anybody who is the best at what they do they work at it and they work hard. When one sees a Payton Manning or a Tom Brady and the ball magically seems to fall into their receivers' hands on Sunday the public just assumes that they are talented. The public doesn't see that they hammered away at these things thousands of times in practice. I am sure that they ruffled some feathers when the pattern called for turning out at exactly 12 yards and the receiver thought 11 was "good enough."

Now without posting too much personal information I will explain this some more. I now run my own .com(and no, I wont ever post links on here) but I came late to the tech party. I am first and foremost an entertainer and this is why my services are different. I don't take the standard geeky approach. I find ways to make tech work for folks without IT Degrees and then explain things in freakin' English. My belief is that there is no tech gene and the industry has massively failed the public. They give us the most sophisticated devices in human history- without so much as an instruction manual. No wonder people are stuck on the ever stupid Facebook and Twitter and don't touch 90% of what their system can do!

What you also would have had no way of knowing is I also conduct regular focus groups and just sit back and observe common users, grannies and people who assume that they are "bad with tech." Then I observe what they react to, truly love or what trips them up- and often times it is something really small.

The key is to listen and observe- even when they don't know how to put it into words. This is why I hammer on the point of not digging in your heels and defending mistakes. I can tell you that 100% of my testers when presented with the new WOT like exactly the same things about the redesign and DO NOT like the exact things I have posted. By the time I wrote those things I was speaking on behalf of multiple people- the types who never would go to an online forum. That bias alone means that most focus groups are totally shutting out the common masses. This provides some explanation of why often times tech firms get bullheaded and are shocked when the public rebels. Their focus groups had bad samples.

Also, I should point out that I don't just criticize to get my jollies. I design interfaces and over the years they have evolved and improved. Maybe there was a button missing. Maybe it had been on the right side for a long time but people naturally reached for it on the left and I had to move it into another group. I often times go and post better pictures. I adjust my writeups and edit edit edit. Perhaps something could have been worded just a bit better? Maybe I learned something new and it was time for a rewrite? My point is often times obstacles and criticism can be a golden opportunity. These things probably are happening for a reason and if we keep our minds open they can be giving us the path to steady improvement.

[Satchman]

I was thinking last night about is there any way that tracking on the web could be a positive or neutral experience? I could only find two examples. Suppose you ordered something from Amazon.com, a secure and very reputable site. You could use tracking to trace the route of the items you ordered. Another good example of tracking would be if you had a relative on an airplane fight, and you wanted to learn when they arrived at a certain city to make sure they got to their destination safely. Those are good tracking examples.

However, I believe for the most part, web site trafficking, especially without the web surfer's knowledge or consent, should be considered as a questionable category by the WOT software. If tracking does not meet the two good examples I described above, users would want to know what information, and how much is being tracked. These guidelines are important, because they help make WOT safer for everyone.

Satch

[Sami]

The Online tracking category means, for example, click tracking performed by advertisers or companies that send you newsletters. Most people don't find this type of tracking questionable, they accept it as a fact of life on the web, because they understand that websites need to earn money or they will cease to exist, and tracking clicks is very necessary for this. Hence, the category is in the Neutral group, together with various other controversial categories. According to our tests, this is also the best group to get people to vote for these categories.

While I can perfectly understand that controversial categories are never in the correct group for all people, I still fail to understand reacting so strongly about a rather minor detail, and the complete inability to see this from other people's point of view. If you feel negatively about any one of the controversial categories in the Neutral group, you can always explain your point of view in the comment, and select any other categories you may see fit from the other groups.

[Apollo702]

You have called us incapable. You have called us emotional.

Is there someone else that we can talk to?

[spectre]

<quote user="sami">
While I can perfectly understand that controversial categories are never in the correct group for all people, I still fail to understand reacting so strongly about a rather minor detail, and the complete inability to see this from other people's point of view. If you feel negatively about any one of the controversial categories in the Neutral group, you can always explain your point of view in the comment, and select any other categories you may see fit from the other groups.
[/quote]

1) IMO it's not a minor detail, it's obviously important to most of the users - I dont see anyone disagreeing apart from you.

2) From what I can see it's Wot staff that have "the complete inability to see this from other people's point of view."

I dont know if this is a language problem but you are coming across as very abrasive to some members that are fairly new to this forum.

[Sami]

<quote user="shazza">
1) IMO it's not a minor detail, it's obviously important to most of the users - I dont see anyone disagreeing apart from you.
[/quote]

How the categories are grouped IS a fairly minor detail, which is why I'm not sure why it's so important to some people. May I remind you that most people are not on this forum and do not read these threads. Hence, I'm the only one bringing outside views inside the bubble here.

2) From what I can see it's Wot staff that have "the complete inability to see this from other people's point of view."

As I said, I can perfectly understand your point of view, but it also seems that you are unwilling to acknowledge that the few million people who don't participate in this discussion may not agree with you, or simply don't find this to be a problem.

I dont know if this is a language problem but you are coming across as very abrasive to some members that are fairly new to this forum.

I believe I have explained the reasoning for the category groups a few times now, and I think I've been far less abrasive than the person who started this and apparently many other hyperbolic threads about the subject.

Also, in case someone here has the impression that I have something to do with the category grouping, I don't. The categories you see have been designed, tested, and quite comprehensively analyzed by other people.

[Sami]

<quote user="apollo702">
You have called us incapable. You have called us emotional.
[/quote]

I would prefer if you didn't twist my words. I called you emotional, because that's how you come across. I also haven't seen you even acknowledge that your opinion may not be the only universal truth.

Is there someone else that we can talk to?

I am not a customer support representative here. If you don't want to hear my opinion, please feel free to talk to someone else.