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

Boonsiri
Posts: 268
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2011 10:06 am

RE: Off topic

Post by Boonsiri » Thu Mar 21, 2013 1:53 am

<quote user="kraftwerk">
: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.
[/quote]I cannot match the witty observation by Heidi-Ann, but also noticed and welcome the change. Of course no one will expect you to remain silent, when you clearly would get challenged to a game of 'Insult arm wrestling' ;-)


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

RE: Off topic

Post by marco2981 » Thu Mar 21, 2013 6:54 am

<quote user="kraftwerk">
: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.
[/quote]

My friend I know you're the same :D

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

RE: Off topic

Post by Kraftwerk » Thu Mar 21, 2013 9:37 am

<quote user="marco2981">
My friend I know you're the same :D
[/quote]

:D (is this a good or a bad sign?)

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 » Thu Mar 21, 2013 3:14 pm

<quote user="edith lincoln">They are obviously confused as to how much comments matter to the ratings.[/quote]\

OK, so every WOT user has an individual interpretation of the rating criteria and more or less individual practices. An important aspect of the reputation system is that WOT weights each user's ratings according to an undisclosed "reliability" estimation of the individual. I'd guess that the ratings contributed by users having a pattern of statistically aberrant ratings have practically no weight upon most sites' reputations. The exceptions would most likely be some reputations about which the scorecards indicate "very low confidence".

Scorecard comments are never used to calculate reputations, as Edith Lincoln noted, so alarmingly irresponsible comments do not necessarily indicate the quality of the reputation scores. A general discussion of statistical weights (but not necessarily WOT's approach) is at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weight_function#Statistics
The so-called [url=http://www.mywot.com/en/blog/anonymity-vs-democracy t=_self]WOT meritocracy[/url] is one way that WOT counteracts "misuse".

——————————————
[url=http://www.mywot.com/wiki/Scorecard#Reputation_rating t=_self]WOT wiki[/url]

Dutch Mountain
Posts: 2801
Joined: Wed May 12, 2010 5:20 pm

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

Post by Dutch Mountain » Thu Mar 21, 2013 6:33 pm

george Christian on Tue 19 Mar 2013 - 09:36:48 PM UTC

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

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!
Hi George Christian and welcome on WOT

IMO we don't need "LIKE" and "DISLIKE" buttons. In several threads we've made clear that WOT isn't a social media site.
Things work different here..........

And about "AGREE" or "DISAGREE" : That already exists in the scorecard of sites.
Go to someones comment on a scorecard and put the mouse arrow on the thumb up or thumb down ( or the number besides those ).
There you have the AGREE / DISAGREE function.

Oh, and than a remark by me, without wanting to be unfriendly of course.
But don't you think it's rather early to complain that the WOT system isn't properly organised when you're pretty new here ?

You're more than welcome and I hope you'll enjoy using WOT.
But I suggest you take some time to get used to WOT and the habits that are common here.

liquid_dragon
Posts: 92
Joined: Mon Apr 08, 2013 6:29 pm

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

Post by liquid_dragon » Mon Apr 08, 2013 6:29 pm

There is always a risk that tools like WOT will be used by those with strong opinions or agendas to inflate or devalue a given sites scores. That is unfortunate. It would nice if everyone was honest and "professional" about their scores. Just because I disagree with a site doesn't mean they have incorrect information, are harmful, or are untrustworthy. Hopefully most people are honest in their scoring, otherwise WOT will lose value.

all4HIM
Posts: 4
Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2013 3:47 pm

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

Post by all4HIM » Fri Apr 12, 2013 4:00 pm

<quote user="liquid_dragon">
There is always a risk that tools like WOT will be used by those with strong opinions or agendas to inflate or devalue a given sites scores. That is unfortunate. It would nice if everyone was honest and "professional" about their scores. Just because I disagree with a site doesn't mean they have incorrect information, are harmful, or are untrustworthy. Hopefully most people are honest in their scoring, otherwise WOT will lose value.
[/quote]

Very well said, unfortunately so many these days don't look at it that way and why that WOT is rapidly losing it's reputation among so many. You cannot vote yourself to be the censor of ideas just because you don't agree with them and thus deem them dangerous if their not. Unless you feel you are GOD and are perfect enough to sit back and judge everyone else. I always thought that WOT was to prevent sites from passing viruses, malware etc. but I don't believe that is the case when I see perfectly safe and trustworthy sites rated dangerous.

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 » Fri Apr 12, 2013 4:08 pm

<quote user="all4him">
when I see perfectly safe and trustworthy sites rated dangerous.
[/quote]

Perfectly? In your opinion, right?

Guest

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

Post by Guest » Fri Apr 12, 2013 4:17 pm

<quote user="all4him">
I always thought that WOT was to prevent sites from passing viruses, malware etc. but I don't believe that is the case when I see perfectly safe and trustworthy sites rated dangerous.
[/quote]

WoT was never intended to be such, that is what an AV and Firewall does.

From the front page:
Add WOT to your browser to protect yourself from online threats that anti-virus software can’t spot

Web safety is not just about viruses and malware. WOT’s ratings are powered by a global community of millions of users who rate websites based on their own experiences. Add WOT to you browser for protection against online threats that only real life experience can detect, such as scams, untrustworthy links, and rogue web stores.
WoT is about opinions: You have yours, I have mine, and everyone else has one too.

Sorry if yours does not fit among the majority. . . Maybe you should ponder why.

Anyhow done with this Troll-a-thon thread.
Be Well.

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 » Fri Apr 12, 2013 6:14 pm

<quote user="all4him">
nfortunately so many these days don't look at it that way and why that WOT is rapidly losing it's reputation among so many. You cannot vote yourself to be the censor of ideas just because you don't agree with them and thus deem them dangerous if their not. Unless you feel you are GOD and are perfect enough to sit back and judge everyone else. I always thought that WOT was to prevent sites from passing viruses, malware etc. but I don't believe that is the case when I see perfectly safe and trustworthy sites rated dangerous.
[/quote]\

@all4HIM,

An unfavorable rating for "Trustworthiness" implies untrustworthy, not "dangerous". Since you premise that adverse ratings mean "dangerous" is false, your entire argument is groundless.

Based upon your "feel-you-are-GOD" remark and your two scorecard comments (copied below) so far this year, I cannot help but to notice that you yourself are prone to "judge everyone else."

all4HIM &nbsp; &nbsp; 04/08/2013 &nbsp; |&nbsp;● Good site

I must agree that liberals or communists they are one and the same cannot stand anyone who thinks differently than themselves . This a very good and safe site if WOT doesn't do something about their sites bias potential they will lose all credibility and is just about there now !
(source: http://www.mywot.com/en/scorecard/conservativedailynews.com/comment-62144845 )

&nbsp;
all4HIM &nbsp; &nbsp; 04/12/2013 &nbsp; |&nbsp;● Good site

This is a very safe and trustworthy site, it is only those who hate truth and righteousness and wish to see America destroyed through socialism rate this site poorly for Liberty Counsel takes a stand for these things.
(source: http://www.mywot.com/en/scorecard/libertycounselaction.org/ )

&nbsp;
Regarding your comment about conservativedailynews.com: Currently, all four of its reputation components are "Very Good" or "Excellent" and its scorecard only bears favorable comments. Oddly, most of the comments were posted within a few hours of yours. What is your connection to the comment flood?

I may not be the only reader to doubt your judgement calls because they very apparently reach exaggerated conclusions.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests