A blog to read bashing WoT

i☆
Posts: 2200
Joined: Tue Sep 28, 2010 9:57 pm

A blog to read bashing WoT

Post by i☆ » Fri Apr 01, 2011 2:27 pm

I haven't read the whole thing yet...have a look: hxxp://news.lavenderliberal.com/2011/01/12/mywot-com-web-of-trust-web-of-lies-or-are-you-trusting-a-nameless-mob-of-vigilante-losers-to-tell-you-how-to-web-surf/ , but I think I would have to agree with them so far...

marco2981
Posts: 2500
Joined: Mon Feb 07, 2011 6:55 am

I did read the whole thing.. they're bashing WoT

Post by marco2981 » Fri Apr 01, 2011 2:46 pm

… We also noticed an increase in the number of dubious websites coming up and trying to manifest themselves as the real review sites but motivated with ANTI-COMPETITIVE and malicious BEHAVIOR . One such site we noticed was www.mywot.com which we found has filled itself with user ratings from mass reviewers whose full time job is to post more than 1000 reviews in a day in sort of mass mailing or mass posting method. Several reviewers that you can find on their website are such as Shazza and many more http://www.mywot.com/en/user/108271/board, http://www.mywot.com/en/user/123741 , http://www.mywot.com/en/user/39237 and http://www.mywot.com/en/user/110914 . Perhaps they would make these links unavailable by the time you review them. But it is very easy to trace any of their reviewers background and how many posting they are doing by just searching on their user name on google. You can see how hard their reviewers are working…

We also found another website linking to mywot.com, which seems to be the host of all such reviewers hxxp://www.ti-continium.com/ . When we tried to contact mywot and ti-continium.com to explain about our products bad reviews, they disabled our registered userids and blocked our ip address. I would like our users to be beware of such sites who are perhaps paid by some competitor to defame our company and products and really have no business looking after consumers online security. They are nothing more than fake security products who have been simply paid to post bad automated reviews and reviewers are given special grade based on how many they can post in a day !! When we wrote to them, their reply was that they are too busy to look into this issue, obviously mass posting similar to spamming is a full time business and why would you do anything if you are paid to do it.

Max Secure has an ever-growing number of happy customer list and you can review them here http://spywaredetector.net/testimonials.htm .

Guest

RE: A blog to read bashing WoT

Post by Guest » Fri Apr 01, 2011 2:51 pm

@ i☆,

Would your agreement be because your own site was a subdomain that inherited the reputation of the domain?

i☆
Posts: 2200
Joined: Tue Sep 28, 2010 9:57 pm

RE: I did read the whole thing.. they're bashing WoT

Post by i☆ » Fri Apr 01, 2011 8:20 pm

That's not actually from the main article.

i☆
Posts: 2200
Joined: Tue Sep 28, 2010 9:57 pm

RE: A blog to read bashing WoT

Post by i☆ » Fri Apr 01, 2011 8:25 pm

000webhost does it to themselves.

From the article:


Now, let’s go over them [the categories] one by one, and see where LavenderLiberal.com may have fallen astray in the eyes of its newly self-appointed overlords:

The first component reflects the overall trustworthiness of the site: Can it be trusted?

By what criteria? By whose criteria? Maggie Gallagher’s? The Mormon Church’s? White Stormfront’s?

Is it safe to use?

Of course. LavenderLiberal.com contains no malware, spyware, nefarious scripting — what other definition of “safe” is there? Is a site “unsafe” because it might make people think?

Does it deliver what it promises?

Absolutely. LavenderLiberal.com is a LGBT site for LGBT people and our allies (generally, left-wingers concerned about injustice in all its forms). It delivers news and opinion. It doesn’t promise anything, but it’s been delivering since 2003.

A poor rating may indicate Internet scams, identity theft risks, credit card fraud, phishing, viruses, adware or spyware.

OK, now we’re getting into serious libel territory. The mere suggestion that LavenderLiberal.com may be even remotely connected to “Internet scams, identity theft risks, credit card fraud, phishing, viruses, adware or spyware” is ridiculous — and potentially libelous. No, actually, it is libelous.

A rating of “unsatisfactory” indicates that the site may contain annoying advertisements, excessive pop-ups or content that makes your browser crash.

“Annoying” is in the eye of the beholder, but LavenderLiberal.com contains far fewer ads than just about any other LGBT blog in existence. There are no pop-ups here and never have been (and if you are getting pop-ups, better check your computer for malware — which you didn’t get from us). And not once has an ad ever made our browsers crash, no matter which browser we use (and we test across a wide variety of browsers).

A “poor” rating may also indicate that the site’s content is not trustworthy.

In what way? In whose opinion? Petey LaBarbera’s? Brian Fisher’s? The Pope’s?

Vendor reliability tells you whether the site is safe for buying and selling or for business transactions in general. An “excellent” rating indicates superior customer service, timely delivery of products or services and overall customer satisfaction. A “poor” rating indicates a possible scam or a bad shopping experience.

Now WOT has soared past the realm of mere libel and rocketed completely into delusional irrelevancy: LavenderLiberal.com does not conduct any business transactions whatsoever. There is no buying nor selling. There is no customer service, because we have no customers. There is no delivery, because there are no products being bought or sold.

How can anyone rate us on “vendor reliability” when we are not vendors? Even when we were hawking our CafePress.com gear (and it’s been about two years since we stopped), CafePress.com was the vendor — I was just the designer.

Privacy tells you whether the site has a privacy policy that protects your personal identity and data. For example, does the social networking service you use give you the means to determine what is public and what remains private? Does the site have opt-in privacy options? A “poor” rating indicates concern that your data may be sold to third parties, be stored indefinitely or be turned over to law enforcement without a warrant, etc.

More libel. Here’s our Privacy Policy — which has been even more tightened up in the years since we began running Google AdSense (which is very particular about publishers having a strong Privacy Policy).

Web of Lies: “Privacy tells you whether the site has a privacy policy that protects your personal identity and data.”

Our Privacy Policy: Exists, has existed for years, and is linked from every publicly-visible page on the site.

Web of Lies: “For example, does the social networking service you use give you the means to determine what is public and what remains private?”

Our Privacy Policy: This site is not a “social networking service,” geniuses.

Web of Lies: “Does the site have opt-in privacy options?”

Our Privacy Policy: There is nothing to opt in to. “This site does not collect any personally-identifiable information, unless you choose to give it to us. You don’t have to register, or tell us who you are, in order to access the publicly-accessible areas of this site.”

We used to have a message forum, which was the only place on the entire site you had to give us a valid email address in order to participate. I shut down the forum in early 2007… what’s that? nearly four years ago.

Today, you can lie your butt off about who you are, and still leave a blog comment. We can’t tell any more about you than who your ISP is — and we don’t care, unless you’re harassing us.

If you’re complaining about the cookie we set to analyze traffic, you’re being an anally-compulsive idiot; any site that wants to see so much as the number of return visitors it gets in a single day sets a cookie.

If you’re complaining because our WHOIS information is private, you’re being a reckless idiot — reckless, that is, with my personal safety and that of my wife. This is not a business. This is a private Web site, owned by an individual — an individual who used to be harassed (and scared) when my personal information was public — and all my info used to be public, before the Internet was completely overrun by psychotic freaks. That is why our WHOIS is private. I’m not going to go through that nightmare again, just to appease a bunch of creeps who might very well like to know where I live.

Web of Lies: “A ‘poor’ rating indicates concern that your data may be sold to third parties, be stored indefinitely or be turned over to law enforcement without a warrant, etc.”

Our Privacy Policy: “We will not sell, give away, trade, or share with any third party anything you tell us about yourself, with two exceptions: 1) If we get a court order demanding your info, we have to turn it over (or we’ll end up in jail with you);” OR ” 2) If you try to spam us, hack us, or otherwise abuse or threaten us, we will turn over every speck of info we can get our hands on to your ISP, and/or the appropriate law enforcement agency/ies.”

Child safety indicates if the site contains age-inappropriate material. This includes mature content meant for adults: Content depicting nudity, sexual content, violence, vulgar or hateful language or content that encourages dangerous or illegal activities.

There is no “nudity, sexual content, violence, vulgar or hateful language or content that encourages dangerous or illegal activities.”

Now, if you think calling out homophobic hate groups and other fringe types is “vulgar” or “hateful,” then you must be Maggie Gallagher or the like.

We do not encourage “dangerous or illegal activities” but rail against “dangerous or illegal activities,” constantly. Continually, in fact, since 2003.

There is nothing “age-inappropriate” on LavenderLiberal.com, because LavenderLiberal.com is not intended for children. We sincerely doubt there is anything “harmful” to children anywhere on the site (unless, of course, you’re the sort who thinks encouraging LGBT youth to be who they are, be proud of who they are, find support networks, and not kill themselves is “harmful”).

Again, from our Privacy Policy/TOS:

“We do not knowingly house any content that would harm anyone under the age of 18 — but this site is not intended for people under 18. When it comes to the question of whether you can, or should, access the contents of any Web site, it is up to you to know and follow the applicable laws of your country, state, province, city, village, and/or snotty co-op association. In other words, we won’t be held responsible (and we really don’t give a damn) if China gets pissed off because one of their oppressed citizens wanted to see a picture of the Tiananmen Square guy.

“At the same time, we believe it is the responsibility of every parent to monitor and limit Internet content viewed by his or her child. We are not babysitters.

“If you don’t agree with all of the above, then please go somewhere else.”

So, WOT, these are pretty serious — and utterly baseless — charges you’re leveling against us. And we don’t care to hear your endlessly-repeated excuse about how WOT only measures “how much users trust websites” (your words, everywhere). As you can see, our site has been ranked in the toilet for ALL these criteria:

Trustworthiness: You’re calling us liars, scammers, spammers, and virus purveyors.

Vendor reliability: You’re lying about our reliability as “vendors,” when we are not vendors of anything.

Privacy: You’re lying when you indicate that we have no privacy policy, and imply that we collect and/or sell personally-identifiable visitor information.

Child safety: For all intents and purposes, you are practically calling us online predators and child molesters.

Every one of these categories is clearly rated down — way down. If just one category had been rated down and the rest left blank, I might think you had just one or two homophobic right-wingers rating us down solely for content.

But no, WOT: Every category is ranked down, even those which do not and could not conceivably apply in any way, shape or form.

And as there is no explanation (note the complete absence of comments, save for one note that we were bookmarked in delicio.us), I can only surmise that you are stating that we are liars and scam artists, that we collect and sell visitor information, and are we are a danger to children.

Thus, you — or at least those mysterious users you like to shift blame onto every time you feel compelled to defend yourself on review sites — are simply lying about us.

Pretty serious charges, all right.


And although their Privacy Policy says nothing about cookies, I see no reason why their site should be rated down for the other categories.

webhawk
Posts: 368
Joined: Sun Dec 19, 2010 11:27 am

RE: A blog to read bashing WoT

Post by webhawk » Fri Apr 01, 2011 10:27 pm

If we are reflecting carefully then this article has as well some valid points.

User avatar
Myxt
Posts: 4156
Joined: Sat Mar 05, 2011 6:18 am

RE: A blog to read bashing WoT

Post by Myxt » Sat Apr 02, 2011 11:45 pm

Their point about child safety / language conflicts with their music video with the multiply repeating refrain, "God will fvck you up"
<a href="http://gaytheistagenda.lavenderliberal.com/2011/04/01/god-will-bleep-you-up/"></a>
Their point that "the site is not for children" is not mentioned on the front page.

NotBuyingIt
Posts: 6582
Joined: Fri Mar 11, 2011 6:21 pm

RE: A blog to read bashing WoT

Post by NotBuyingIt » Sun Apr 03, 2011 4:45 am

Nevertheless, the point about language is prominently mentioned on the site's "About" page
  • http://gaytheistagenda.lavenderliberal.com/about/
This blog is not intended for children. While I generally refrain from adult language (other than the occasional hell or damn )and do not post nude photos, the subjects and themes discussed are often sensitive and/or mature. Reader discretion is always advised.
Obviously, most people find that F-word in the cited music video posted on 1-April-2011 (I didn't view it) to be much stronger adult language than represented by the site owner's disclaimer; so, the MyWot reviewers' ratings for Child Safety may be defensible. On the whole, though, the site's language seems substantially milder than some of the tenor and attitude at the highly esteemed [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT t=_self]LGBT[/url] advocacy site www.pamshouseblend.com, which currently has a good Child Safety rating.

I wonder if anyone found similar curse-word conflicts prior to this April Fool's day that would explain the ratings made before then?

Ecker
Posts: 56
Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2011 1:09 pm

RE: A blog to read bashing WoT

Post by Ecker » Sun Apr 03, 2011 12:14 pm

I think so too. I looked on the page, and I don't think that they deserve this bad rating. I feel ashamed.

It is always when the rating has only intolerant reasons that there are up to 40, 60 very bad ratings and no comment. On other sites you find a lot of comments in different categories.

Ecker
Posts: 56
Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2011 1:09 pm

RE: A blog to read bashing WoT

Post by Ecker » Sun Apr 03, 2011 12:21 pm

and the song even is not that bad. it's only one word. Maybe they are atheist and ment the text cynical, but they could also believe in god and do not mean it cynical, because the text of this song only says that if you do bad things god will punish you as you can read in the bible. The only thing is that they use for punish the f word. Of course, for some people this is blasphemy.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests