A blog to read bashing WoT

[Myxt]

By golly, you're right! There's the link to the About page, about 700 pixels away from the F-bomb in the actual title of the song. Maybe the kids are using netbooks with small screens and don't scroll down the page before clicking the About link.

[NotBuyingIt]

Sarcasm noted, Myxt. I gave a more accurate context to your statement because I thought that it had some validity but omitted pertinent details. I will try again.


Readers who look for themselves will find that the site embeds a YouTube video within which the uncensored song title is displayed and repeatedly enunciated. The LavenderLiberal page's text lists the song title as God will Bleep You Up. Inasmuch as it is really www.YouTube.com — currently having an "Excellent" MyWot rating for Child Safety — that displays the nasty word uncensored, it is especially questionable to expect stronger censorship from the little-visited LavenderLiberal. Concerned parents (and "do-goods" preening their indignation) may appeal directly to YouTube to get the outrage fixed. They may also wish to uninstall the Flash plug-in from their children's browser. Worried MyWot users may wish to assign a lower rating to YouTube.

[Myxt]

A very considered reply - thanks!

[NotBuyingIt]

Remember -- I am largely agreeing with you and I mostly think that the site owner's rant is silly and unpleasant to read, although he definitely was justified to take issue with myWoT.

[DeanC_UK]

This is my own personal view, and not my employer's (WOT), but I'd take the article with a pinch of salt:

• There's reasons that the number of ratings aren't disclosed have been discussed on here numerous times.
• The author talks about whose view is the overall rating representing. It's representing the views of users who want to express their view. He pointed out he hasn't the time or need to rate the site. But that's his prerogative. The confidence in the rating on the scorecard is clearly labelled as low, so if he really was interested in getting a positive rating instead of rating, he'd do it himself.
• There seems to be an underlying implication throughout the article of some anti LGBT agenda that has caused this rating. I strongly disagree that this is the case. There have always been users that will rate sites badly based on their own personal (and occasionally contraversial) views, but they are just as entitled to make them as anyone else. Hateful or inflammatory comments are removed, but the whole point of the rating system is that it's anonymous. Users should feel free to rate based on their own criteria within the four categories and then a consensus rating is reached. There is not a consensus on this scorecard, the confidence is low.
• Regarding child safety, that's a matter of personal taste. I've only read this particular blog post. I wouldn't want my six year old cousin reading the b**ch word, or about chlamydia (both discussed at the top of this blog post) at such a young age so I can understand why the child safety component is low. Also if child safety is low and other components are high, child safety won't change the colour of the icon in the addon. (Disclaimer: I haven't rated this site, and nor will I in this case)

[mentalist3d]

"So, because a few ignorant gay-bashers hate me for who I am, they have the right to lie about me, saying that my site is full of viruses, that I rip people off, that I sell personal information, and that I am a danger to children?"

That is a comment from the site owner, can anyone point me out to those comments? Site owner has missed the point about the rating system and is interpreting the scorecard to the extreme.

[NotBuyingIt]

@DeanC_UK,

In order to estimate the impact of anti-LGBT prejudice or anti-atheist prejudice upon the site's rating, I would need to know how many hateful comments were actually removed from its scorecard. Since you have a strong opinion about the issue, perhaps you would know. Are you in a position to disclose this?

[Sami]

No comments have been removed from the scorecard.

[NotBuyingIt]

@mentalist3d,
That quotation was a part of the site owner's rant examining the four rating components, not the Comments section of the WOT scorecard. He means that negative ratings infer those things based upon [url=http://www.mywot.com/en/faq/website/rating-websites#ratingcomponents t=_self]WOT's explanation of the components[/url] — which is an entirely valid argument (once all of his bombast is scraped away). Do you see the correspondence between his sentence and each rating component?

[NotBuyingIt]

I am pleased to learn that! I was unsure of the situation because I had very recently read alarming comments posted on other scorecards, like these which were posted last year:

http://www.mywot.com/en/scorecard/splcenter.org/comment-8982672

http://www.mywot.com/en/scorecard/splcenter.org/comment-8982773

Subscribers, more seasoned that I am, may have seen much more.