Third Party Source Request and Software Review Request

Guest

RE: Third Party Source Request and Software Review Request

Post by Guest » Mon Apr 15, 2013 12:47 am

<quote user="colbabomb">
Site Owner = report FP to company
[/quote]


Mywot = more re-evaluation requests and more complaints.
Thanks but no thanks

alphacentauri
Posts: 3291
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2009 12:52 pm

RE: Third Party Source Request and Software Review Request

Post by alphacentauri » Mon Apr 15, 2013 12:50 am

Is there a blacklist function on virustotal? The part I have always used just analyzes a file you submit. You have to look at the results to determine if the file is good, bad or questionable. Files commonly get false positives or false negatives from several of the AV programs they are tested against.

c۞g
Posts: 21225
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2009 4:02 am

RE: Third Party Source Request and Software Review Request

Post by c۞g » Mon Apr 15, 2013 4:41 am

WOT rates the reputation of a domain: [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IP_address t=_self]IP address[/url] or [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hostname t=_self]hostname[/url]
It does not offer reputation for a [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/URL t=_self]URL[/url]

www.virustotal.com offers a submission for either a file, or for a URL (file source for example)
It is strictly used for [url=https://www.mywot.com/forum/18796-malware t=_self]Malware[/url] research and is not intended to be used as a "black list"
If you notice, humans must vote if a URL or File is "red/bad" or "green/good" and VT will adjust those "ratings" by the confidence it has in it's [url=https://www.virustotal.com/community/ t=_self]community.[/url] Anonymous votes only get +/- 1 for example.

Softpedia / cNet / other download sites offer software. Not always do these software authors have domains/sites of their own. Software downloads are via URL's - again, URL's are not within WOT's scope.

Armored
Posts: 626
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2010 10:38 am

RE: Third Party Source Request and Software Review Request

Post by Armored » Mon Apr 15, 2013 4:58 am

<quote user="leofelix">
Mywot = more re-evaluation requests and more complaints.
Thanks but no thanks
[/quote] I couldn't agree more. I prefer not to see anymore "trusted" sources.
What we do need though, is more active raters.

Guest

RE: Third Party Source Request and Software Review Request

Post by Guest » Tue Apr 16, 2013 3:48 pm

<quote user="armored">
I couldn't agree more. I prefer not to see anymore "trusted" sources.
What we do need though, is more active raters.
[/quote]
Sorry for taking so long to respond, I didn't see your reply.
Although I find a couple of "Trusted Sources" useless or unnecessary, I do not think we'll have more active raters as long as members (especially non english mother tongue persons) will get notifications from an unclickable anonymous admin asking them

Hi,
The following site owners have requested for their site's reputation to be re-evaluated. Please (*) read their requests on the forum and see if your ratings and comments are still relevant.


even if they never commented a site scorecard

This doesn't encourage them, this discourages them.
There is no need to be a genius to understand why.



However, sorry for going partially off topic, "the horse has already bolted" (I could not find a good translation form the italian "Ormai la frittata è fatta") and this is just my opinion.
Time will tell

as for virustotal, it is just a scanner both for sites and files and appropriate responses have been already given

Amen

(*) Nice, I see they added "Please" ; )

Guest

RE: Third Party Source Request and Software Review Request

Post by Guest » Tue Apr 16, 2013 4:45 pm

Frankly I would prefer to see less "Trusted Sources" used, and the first I would get rid of would be Yandex. Other then HpHosts I put very little stock in what I see by "trusted Source." Yes there is some that are reliable.

Armored
Posts: 626
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2010 10:38 am

RE: Third Party Source Request and Software Review Request

Post by Armored » Wed Apr 17, 2013 1:02 pm

<quote user="leofelix">
Sorry for taking so long to respond, I didn't see your reply.
[/quote] I didn't expect a reply, I was just making a statement ,nothing to say sorry for:)
I'm the worst when it comes to replying to posts!
<quote user="leofelix">
Although I find a couple of "Trusted Sources" useless or unnecessary
[/quote] Agree, and will never base my rating on a "trusted source".

<quote user="leofelix">
I do not think we'll have more active raters as long as members (especially non english mother tongue persons) will get notifications from an unclickable anonymous admin asking them: [snip]
[/quote] Even though I have a [url=http://www.mywot.com/en/forum/33944-another-feature-request?comment=197544#comment-197544 t=_self]different view[/url] about those messages, I never thought about how it would sound for somebody who isn't a native english speaker. You make a fair point, and it's something that should be considered.

I guess we need to wait and see what Admin has in mind when they [url=http://www.mywot.com/en/forum/33944-another-feature-request?comment=197612#comment-197612 t=_self] improve this message system.[/url]

In regards to getting more active raters. . I have introduced a fair few people to WOT and I always encourage them to rate sites they are familiar with, but I must say: I find it very hard to get these people to actively rate sites-most can't be bothered. . .They are happy to receive the benefits of the add-on but not willinging to contribute. . .

That's a real shame though, because theoretically the more people that rate sites the more we can "trust" the ratings. . .




Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests