How to improve WOT

Post Reply
BKowalski
Posts: 12
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2010 9:53 am

Actually, WOT only computes

Post by BKowalski » Sat Jan 23, 2010 1:22 am

[cite]Actually, WOT only computes a reputation for the site, as I've been trying to explain. Comments left on the scorecard imply that a past malware incident still affects the reputation though.[/cite]

The comments do not imply. They state. They state that malware exists on the site. That is incorrect. If the comments stated that there was a malware incident since rectified then that would be correct.

As for the 'reputation' this is not based on what our customer base of 5 years thinks but what the 12 or so people on WoT think and that is based on two aspects 1) that there is malware on the site which is incorrect and 2) that it is an adult site which is correct.

[cite]The objective is and has always been to measure website reputations. Everything else follows from that.[/cite]

No. You do not just measure a websites reputation. For better or worse you also influence and set a websites reputation. I am surprised you said this.

I would suggest that we leave it there as I suspect criticising WoT will do me little favours however I would like a repy to my PM because it raised issues that do concern me.

Best Regards

Bob









User avatar
Sami
Posts: 3506
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 11:43 am

Re: Actually, WOT only computes

Post by Sami » Sat Jan 23, 2010 2:08 am

The comments do not imply

Comments do only imply when it comes to the reputation, because they don't affect the reputation and leaving them is optional.

the 'reputation' this is not based on what our customer base of 5 years thinks

It's based only on available information, obviously. Surely a customer base of many years could help more customers find your site if they shared their experiences with others. You may want to encourage them to do so.

you also influence and set a websites reputation

We merely share the information we receive from others. Sure, this may affect someone's perception of a website, but probably no more than if they had received the information through another channel. Also, not showing reputations might seriously hinder the usefulness of the service...

BKowalski
Posts: 12
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2010 9:53 am

Comments do only imply when

Post by BKowalski » Sat Jan 23, 2010 9:49 am

[cite]Comments do only imply when it comes to the reputation, because they don't affect the reputation and leaving them is optional.[/cite]

The comments reflect the rating. I am going to assume that if someone comments that a site has malware and there is a big red dot alongside said comment that the rating given will not be a high one. Equally if someone comments that people using a site 'are freaking scumbags' then it is reasonable to assume that the site is not going to feature on their top ten favourite sites and will be rated accordingly.

But if you are happy with abusive comments and incorrect ratings/comments based on out of date information then so be it.

[cite]It's based only on available information, obviously. Surely a customer base of many years could help more customers find your site if they shared their experiences with others. You may want to encourage them to do so. [/cite]

I will consider it.

[cite]We merely share the information we receive from others. Sure, this may affect someone's perception of a website, but probably no more than if they had received the information through another channel.[/cite]

I am positive big glaring warnings that the site is unsafe because of malware will effect perception. When such warning is wrong it can also be irritating and as has been mentioned they will not be receiving such warnings through other channels because there is nothing to warn about. As to hindering the usefulness of a service that flags sites based on incorrect information and personal prejudice - well I will let that one pass :)

Think we have exhausted the conversation however I do appreciate you taking time to discuss the issues raised.

Regards

Bob




User avatar
c۞g
Posts: 10927
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2009 4:02 am

re: Comments do only imply when

Post by c۞g » Sat Jan 23, 2010 6:59 pm

My turn ;)

You're missing the point about Scorecard Comments ...
Comments provide more information, but do not affect ratings

Comments were not originally intended to exist and were included based upon user feedback in the early stages of WOT testing. For more detailed commentary concerning comments, please refer to this blog post:
Against textual comments - 05 Feb 2007


The comments reflect the rating
Not true.
You only assume that a comment displays the ratings left.
For example, one could rate [red]red[/red] and leave a [green]Good Site[/green] comment - you would assume the rating(s) to be high, or visa-versa.
Don't assume anything about comments - they are merely opinions.

But if you are happy with abusive comments and incorrect ratings/comments based on out of date information then so be it.
Again, Comments are merely expressed opinions with the exception of an automated "comment" based upon a database synchronization entry of a secondary source - which is just a basic reference.

I am positive big glaring warnings that the site is unsafe because of malware will effect perception. When such warning is wrong it can also be irritating and as has been mentioned they will not be receiving such warnings through other channels because there is nothing to warn about.
WOT has no control over which blacklisting service may include a domain or as to why. MalewareURL is slow to remove listings, that is something you need to resolve, but this Forum is not the place. Had you spent the time securing your website(s) and ensuring that they would not be able to become compromised, it is likely none of these discussions would have taken place. WOT didn't allow an intruder to inject malicious code/redirects on your site - you did. And yes, there was a compromise concerning Maleware and you got flagged for it, and you probably would have never known about it's existence if WOT didn't warn you that ther is something wrong with one (or more?) of your domains.

I am positive big glaring warnings that the site is unsafe because of malware will effect perception.
Big glaring warnings... is a user setting; I haven't seen a Warning Screen since I snapped a screen capture for one - I just use the Notification Bar (user settings - Warnings page - bottom check-mark box on right column)

When such warning is wrong it can also be irritating and as has been mentioned they will not be receiving such warnings through other channels because there is nothing to warn about.
You're incorrect to associate WOT and it's database with a service such as an antivirus company and their signature file listings, or with a Malware blacklist service and their database listings.

WOT uses some blacklist services, whom are referred to as Trusted Sources, to proffer a warning on websites that may or may not have been rated by another WOT user, to ensure that unrated websites that could potentially harm your computer or compromise your PII are Warned against.

As to hindering the usefulness of a service that flags sites based on incorrect information and personal prejudice
The information that flagged your website was indeed correct.
You may have rectified the problems with your site, but you need to resolve the current listing on other services.
As for personal prejudice, you're speaking subjectively, WOT isn't prejudice against your domain(s) it only displays what other people and/or blacklist services determine your site to be based upon their experiences/listed entries. There is nothing in WOT that forces anyone to rate a website based on any particular requirement other than the request that people rate sites honestly, fairly, and based upon their experiences with it. You really need to take the time to learn about how WOT works and it's Meritocratic nature.
-------
WOT Services Ltd. - gives us safety through Web of Trust.
WOT Community - gives us security through unity.
Thank you all
- G7W

Master Marik
Posts: 17
Joined: Sun Jan 24, 2010 2:50 am

Rate Ads + Add-on for Safari

Post by Master Marik » Sun Jan 24, 2010 2:50 am

We should be able to rate Ads on sites because while we can rate the actual site, you won't know if it's bad or not until you click the ad. Also I think there should be an Internet Add-on of WoT for the Safari internet browser.

User avatar
c۞g
Posts: 10927
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2009 4:02 am

re: Rate Ads + Add-on for Safari

Post by c۞g » Sun Jan 24, 2010 4:45 am

Ads on sites are generally not on the site but linked to from another domain.
Many Firefox users have AdBlock Plus installed; so they rarely ever see ads.
Also, you can't really rate Site "A" based upon the ad content from Site "X" when site "X" may not always point to the same website.

as for Safari:
WOT bookmarklet for Safari

or Opera:
User created WOT for Opera rocks!

-------
WOT Services Ltd. - gives us safety through Web of Trust.
WOT Community - gives us security through unity.
Thank you all
- G7W

BKowalski
Posts: 12
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2010 9:53 am

For example, one could rate

Post by BKowalski » Sun Jan 24, 2010 9:55 am

[cite]For example, one could rate red and leave a Good Site comment - you would assume the rating(s) to be high, or visa-versa.
Don't assume anything about comments - they are merely opinions.[/cite]

The best way to bet is to go with the obvious. If someone is abusive towards your site then you can safely assume that the person will not be sending you a christmas card or for that matter giving you a good rating :)

[cite]WOT has no control over which blacklisting service may include a domain or as to why. MalewareURL is slow to remove listings, that is something you need to resolve, but this Forum is not the place.[/cite]

No it is not for me to resolve. It is for malwareurl to resolve. It is their site and if they want to be in the business of listing malware sites then they should at least be accurate. The same goes for WoT if they rely on inaccurate information. If I am responsible for my sites being well run, maintained, secure and contain uptodate information (which I am) then the same applies to malwareurl and WOT does it not?

[cite]Had you spent the time securing your website(s) and ensuring that they would not be able to become compromised, it is likely none of these discussions would have taken place. WOT didn't allow an intruder to inject malicious code/redirects on your site - you did. And yes, there was a compromise concerning Maleware and you got flagged for it, and you probably would have never known about it's existence if WOT didn't warn you that ther is something wrong with one (or more?) of your domains[/cite]

Well much as we would all like to give WoT credit for catching this I'm afraid it can't be done. The security breach was detected within hours and the malware removed equally quickly and the script that had the loophole was also removed to prevent it happening again. By the time malwareurl/WoT reported a breach the problem had been resolved. That initself is not a issue because you would expect a timelag but since malwareurl, unlike say Norton, never rescan or update their records it dilutes the service they provide. Equally as you rely on malwareurl it dilutes WoT. Its a cliche I know but the internet is a fast moving and fluid business. Reporting info that is 2 months old and out of date as current is a waste of everyones time.

[cite]Big glaring warnings... is a user setting; I haven't seen a Warning Screen since I snapped a screen capture for one - I just use the Notification Bar (user settings - Warnings page - bottom check-mark box on right column)[/cite]

I assume worst case scenario and assume everyone has a big glaring warning possibly connected to a siren that flashes :)

[cite]You're incorrect to associate WOT and it's database with a service such as an antivirus company and their signature file listings, or with a Malware blacklist service and their database listings.[/cite]

If WoT users link to a an outside database then WoT by extension is associated. It is unavoidable really. You may claim that there is no linkage or association and legally that is undoubtedly the case but in practice and through common usage you are linked

[cite]The information that flagged your website was indeed correct [/cite]

Emphasis on 'was' and correct for about 3 hours

[cite]You may have rectified the problems with your site, but you need to resolve the current listing on other services.[/cite]

Agreed and they have been contacted. Three times and also by our hosts. The fact that the entry is still there I can only put down to imcompetence on the part of malwareurl. It is a poor service because it needs to be accurate otherwise what is the point of it?

[cite]As for personal prejudice, you're speaking subjectively, [/cite]

Yes I am speaking subjectively. But then subjective opinion is the basis on which WoT operates. It relys on peoples personal experiences and opinions to rate sites does it not? How did you find the site? Was it informative? Was it entertaining? All of these are subjective experiences.

[cite]WOT isn't prejudice against your domain(s) it only displays what other people and/or blacklist services determine your site to be based upon their experiences/listed entries. [/cite]

It relys on some blacklist services. In fact it relies on one blacklist service and a service that gets things wrong. I have not said that you are prejudiced against my domain. I do not think you or WoT is against me. All I have done is point out that you are basing your current ratings on outdated information. I have questioned the basis on which WoT operates but in, hopefully, a constructive manner because I am interested in what you are trying to achieve here.

[cite]There is nothing in WOT that forces anyone to rate a website based on any particular requirement other than the request that people rate sites honestly, fairly, and based upon their experiences with it. You really need to take the time to learn about how WOT works and it's Meritocratic nature.[/cite]

Which in no way addresses the issue of someone dealing with a website unfairly or dishonestly although I will say that in my judegment the people who will take the time and trouble to register with WoT and rate websites are likely to do so honestly and fairly.

As for a meritocracy well you can argue it both ways. You could say that WoT is a group of self elected individuals who act as judge and jury passing unasked for judgement on websites and without even the courtesy of giving the website owner the right of reply or the opportunity to address issues raised.

Personally I think if you are going to rate a website poorly for whatever reason you should at least have the courtesy to inform the site owner. Same applies if you want to give them a good rating I am sure the owner would be pleased after all most site owners are just indiviuals like myself and we all need a bit of love now and then :)

Regards

Bob










User avatar
Vesa P
Posts: 17
Joined: Sat Jan 09, 2010 2:25 pm

Translations

Post by Vesa P » Sun Jan 24, 2010 10:13 am

WOT is happy to get the translations done. We have also listed this sort of information extremely necessary and obviously welcome all the assistance we can get from the community !

User avatar
The Big Bin
Posts: 469
Joined: Mon Nov 17, 2008 10:31 pm

-

Post by The Big Bin » Sun Jan 24, 2010 6:20 pm

yep, me too. idk, I've sent you another bunch of suggestions quite a while ago. Did you get them?



--
Per aspera ad astra

User avatar
Vesa P
Posts: 17
Joined: Sat Jan 09, 2010 2:25 pm

Suggestions

Post by Vesa P » Mon Jan 25, 2010 9:17 am

FlyAqua - did you post them here or send them to me by e-mail ?

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest