Mass Rating Tool

JulieA2012
Сообщения: 34
Зарегистрирован: Чт янв 24, 2013 9:55 pm

RE: Mass Rating Tool

Сообщение JulieA2012 » Чт янв 24, 2013 9:55 pm

I didn't even know there was a mass rating tool. I prefer to rate and comment on each site individually, because they are all different.

NotBuyingIt
Сообщения: 6554
Зарегистрирован: Пт мар 11, 2011 6:21 pm

RE: Mass Rating Tool

Сообщение NotBuyingIt » Пт янв 25, 2013 2:46 am

<quote user="juliea2012">
I didn't even know there was a mass rating tool. I prefer to rate and comment on each site individually, because they are all different.
[/quote]

To the contrary, often "disposable" domain names are registered in bulk for the same scam or malicious exploit, as may have been mentioned once or twice earlier in this discussion thread. For example, fifty "clone" websites may serve virtually the same web pages in an online pharmacy scam. The mass rating tool is an effective way to caution WOT users against such sites.

Guest

RE: Mass Rating Tool

Сообщение Guest » Пт янв 25, 2013 12:19 pm

<quote user="notbuyingit">
To the contrary, often "disposable" domain names are registered in bulk for the same scam or malicious exploit, as may have been mentioned once or twice earlier in this discussion thread. For example, fifty "clone" websites may serve virtually the same web pages in an online pharmacy scam. The mass rating tool is an effective way to caution WOT users against such sites.
[/quote]

I agree !

Armored
Сообщения: 626
Зарегистрирован: Вт июл 06, 2010 10:38 am

. . . . .

Сообщение Armored » Пн янв 28, 2013 9:24 am

@Jazspeak <quote user="jazspeak">
We can each get a rough idea about our own Reliability Score by accurately, and dispassionately, rating little known but not necessarily bad sites that have not previously been rated, and wait to see how many of the Confidence Indicators (the little men on the scorecards) darken in response to the WOT system's assessment of your own rating reliability.[/quote] Yep, I have used that method in the past. I don't think it's possible for a single user to bring the confidence indicators past "2 human figures" per component. I wish every user had the provision of seeing his reliability at least once in a lifetime-just to satisfy curiosity.

@c۞g
Firstly I would like to thankyou for the time you spend in composing replies such as this. I don't know how your able to consistently do it without going mad! I find it hard to find time replying to only a few threads let alone the amount your constantly involved with.

<quote user="c۞g">
It would be logical to remove the MRT when that reliability drops below the set threshold. One day you may have the MRT tab in your profile and another day you may not.
[/quote] I did think of that, and didn't see it as a major problem, as long as the MRT isn't granted and then removed within a short period of time like a yo-yo. There are numerous ways to overcome this. One option could have been to: design it in a way that makes it harder to lose once received. One way this could have been achieved is by, ensuring a guaranteed time period of having access to the tool after qualifying to use it, and then only losing it after your reliability is dropped below a reduced threshold.

Or another option: Once received your guaranteed access for at least 6 months and then will only lose it if your reliability reaches zero. If it climbs back up again access would not be granted until a further 6 months, and the time frame will increase by 3 months with every subsequent loss or gain. This would ensure very long periods of time between having access and not having access to the tool. As I said earlier it would need tweaking and Admin would be in the best position to decide what would be the most balanced & workable approach if reliability was going to be a factor when granting the MRT.

Finally if people are still going to be sensitive(I'm not) about the possibility of losing the MRT because of a drop in reliability, I'll even settle for reliability merely playing an initial role when a user is being rewarded the tool. In other words once you get it you can't lose it unless it is confiscated manually. I would not prefer this approach but would still consider it superior to the current system.

These are just a few possibilities that come to mind. Another issue that would need to be addressed is: What happens to current MRT users who are operating below the reliability threshold?-That will also be up to Admin to decide what is reasonable. So yes if the system was to be developed in a way that factors reliability into the equation that grants access to the MRT it would indeed be a complex task, and it would be expected to evolve over time much the same way WOT has evolved from the idea of "a circle of friends" as you mentioned earlier.

<quote user="c۞g">
The MRT is a tool,to serve the purpose of a community and everyone within that community should be eligible to access it assuming they meet the requirements; playing "favorites" would be... prejudicial.
[/quote] Referring to the suggestion of: introducing a reliability threshold as part of the condition required to gain access to the MRT as "playing favorites" is going over-the-top. Honestly, If that's going to be considered in such a way than the current system, which rewards the MRT only to users who have reached a certain activity level is "prejudicial" as well.

The current system based solely on "activity" and the one suggested based partially on "reliability" are both potentially achievable to everybody. BUT only attainable if as you said, certain "requirements" are meet. I was merely suggesting a change in the requirements.

<quote user="c۞g">
The reason the MRT was removed from Gold level activity to Platinum level, was to ensure people gained more experience at ratings, [/quote] The interesting thing about that change, is that it didn't actually ensure more experience with rating sites. Because rating sites is not essential to increasing activity level.

<quote user="c۞g">
Disclaimer
please don't quote me ...

[/quote] I have bookmarked it for future quotation. . . . . . . . . . . . . just kidding:D

@Admin
If the current system for granting access to the MRT is going to be kept (I presume it is), can you please consider increasing the standard of what constitutes MRT abuse? Even doing that would be a step forward. Personally I agree with [url=http://www.mywot.com/en/forum/22354-mass-rating-tool?comment=181646#comment-181646 t=_self] NoScams[/url] assessment of what is not good MRT use. Everybody doing those two things without verifying each website themselves should have it removed IMO. Only problem is: proving whether somebody verified the site or not. . .

Unless something interesting is added, I'm done with this topic.

Jazspeak
Сообщения: 7295
Зарегистрирован: Пт окт 17, 2008 4:20 pm

RE: . . . . .

Сообщение Jazspeak » Вт янв 29, 2013 4:33 pm

<quote user="armored">
"...don't think it's possible for a single user to bring the confidence indicators past "2 human figures" per component."
[/quote]

That is my thought, and observation, too. However, that does mean that at least three people with a decent rating reliabilty score must rate the site for that site scorecard to show maximum confidence in the ratings, and that is probably a good thing.

c۞g
Сообщения: 21225
Зарегистрирован: Пн янв 05, 2009 4:02 am

Reputation and confidence

Сообщение c۞g » Вт янв 29, 2013 8:27 pm

Reputation and confidence of ratings are a bit off topic concerning the MRT, however:
https://www.mywot.com/wiki/API#Reputation_and_confidence

Armored
Сообщения: 626
Зарегистрирован: Вт июл 06, 2010 10:38 am

RE: Reputation and confidence

Сообщение Armored » Вт янв 29, 2013 11:41 pm

<quote user="c۞g">
Reputation and confidence of ratings are a bit off topic concerning the MRT, however:
[/quote] I think this thread has been off topic from the very first post! I mean the OP titles the thread "Mass Rating Tool" Which is rather general as there are many aspects that can be discussed about the MRT. Then the body of the OP is specifically talking about: hiding MRT comments-which is the true topic of the OP. . .

Come to think of it, at least 90% of this entire thread is not talking about the real topic the OP wanted to discuss. I got no complaints though, considering some excellent changes have been made because of our (all of us) numerous off topic posts:)

@Jazspeak
PM sent.



karena321
Сообщения: 2
Зарегистрирован: Ср янв 30, 2013 6:46 am

RE: Mass Rating Tool

Сообщение karena321 » Ср янв 30, 2013 6:46 am

<quote user="kenneth1985">
Seems like more trouble than it's worth. Oh, well. Thanks for the responses, everyone.
[/quote]yeah

alphacentauri
Сообщения: 3291
Зарегистрирован: Пн ноя 02, 2009 12:52 pm

RE: Mass Rating Tool

Сообщение alphacentauri » Пт фев 01, 2013 4:05 am

I wouldn't be in favor of the mandatory forum thread idea. I already try to put lots of evidence in my comments when I use the MRT. That puts the information where people are more likely to see it if they're considering doing business with a scam site. Already most people don't click through the red donut to see the score card; there's not much to be gained by making them click again and slog through pages of posts with lists of domains to see if there if there is any actual information provided in the forum thread.

I also am disappointed that some people who are not capable of gathering their own lists of bad sites are just copying and pasting them into scorecards to artificially boost their reliability. They're basically going behind more reliable users and agreeing, with no independent input. Then some of them misuse that power and downrate OPs who aren't deferential enough to them. It makes WOT look petty. I don't post lists here anymore for that reason. I just rate sites myself.

I would favor rewarding the MRT based on reliability once a person has rated enough sites for their reliability to be a meaningful value. I think it only should be rescinded manually, because frankly, I don't think there are that many people who are capable of using the MRT appropriately. If you set the initial threshold appropriately, you won't be taking back too many people's privileges (other than the occasional bipolar member going off his/her meds).

Jazspeak
Сообщения: 7295
Зарегистрирован: Пт окт 17, 2008 4:20 pm

RE: Mass Rating Tool

Сообщение Jazspeak » Пт фев 01, 2013 10:21 am

<quote user="alphacentauri">
"...there's not much to be gained by making them click again and slog through pages of posts with lists of domains to see if there if there is any actual information provided in the forum thread."
[/quote]

The idea of enforced forum posts for MRT use is not about making people "slog through pages of posts" but is about making it easier to expose misuse of the MRT. The scorecard comments should remain the main exposure of evidence to support the ratings, and the enforced forum postings only need to be lists of domains, etc, submitted via the MRT so that those domains can be independently verified by other users. There is no reason why those domains being rated via the MRT can't be automatically posted onto the forum, perhaps with each MRT user having a designated thread so that the lists can be easily attributed to that member using the MRT.

<quote user="alphacentauri">
"...disappointed that some people who are not capable of gathering their own lists of bad sites are just copying and pasting them into scorecards to artificially boost their reliability."
[/quote]

Firstly, those people who just copy and paste lists tend to do so from third-party blacklists rather than from forum posts. Those people were not doing so to increase their reliabilty but were doing so to increase their activity scores in a misguided race to the top of the activity charts. Now that the activity charts have been disbanded and the activity scores capped, the motive for copying and pasting has been removed.

<quote user="alphacentauri">
"...would favor rewarding the MRT based on reliability once a person has rated enough sites for their reliability to be a meaningful value."
[/quote]

Whilst many here would agree that rating reliability might be a good criteria for awarding the MRT, the main problem with that is that we simply don't have enough information about how that reliability is calculated. It has frequently been pointed out that highly active MRT users probably have a reduced level of reliability (as defined by the WOT system) even though they are probably regarded by the WOT 'community' as being more reliable than most members. As I previously noted, without reliability scores being made available it is very difficult to know whether the award of the MRT on that basis would be the right way forward.

Ответить

Кто сейчас на конференции

Сейчас этот форум просматривают: Baidu [Spider] и 4 гостя