Page 5 of 8
re: Language Objection
Posted: Sat Mar 06, 2010 1:36 am
Good points, I agree.
"Check out Reputation to sites related to mywot.com "
Alternatively, sites similar to: mywot.com
might be more appropriate.
ditto on the [url=http://www.mywot.com/forum/5710-scorecard-link-to-site t=_self]linking[/url]
If the sites are not visited, people may start to rate the similar sites based on the same rating they gave to the scorecard site, which would be unfair to both the websites and the rater, with a potential to degrade the rater's reputation reliability within WOT. Websites should always be visited before rating, with the exception of known malicious domains.
Precisely. Lets also
Posted: Sat Mar 06, 2010 1:45 am
Precisely. Lets also consider that many newcomers to WOT plus the less comitted users will probably rate the scorecards based on the comments already there in which to quickly get reputation rather than visit any site itself. What will then happen is many sites will have ratings which are inaccurate which will (over time) bring down the credability of WOT itself.
How about changing the wording to specifically relate to WOT itself and not imply they are connected to the sites scorecard. say:
"Other site that are listed on WOT"
Although I stand by my initial objection. We should have the means to disable this within our scorecards.
Will sit back now and see what other have to say.
www.issviews.com for views and news of the starte of digital security. Add your comments/.feedback on your existing security software to help others choose what's right for them and what isn't. Read up on the latest rogue software and threats too.
Posted: Sat Mar 06, 2010 2:20 am
The practice of placing links to similar sites does not bother me half as much as the language used.
"Check out Reputation to sites related to..."
None of these listed sites are related to my site. They are "vaguely similar" but not related. The language used implies that the listed sites are somehow connected to my site. They are not.
It also could imply that my site endorses or recommends these other sites. My site does not endorse or recommend these other sites. This is very misleading.
Also, the link to other sites does not take you to that site. The link takes you to that site's Web of Trust scorecard. I want to visit the site before I rate it.
Please change the language and correct the links.
Posted: Sat Mar 06, 2010 3:19 am
I think I understand why WOT is experimenting with this, WOT needs to find it's place in the [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_web t=_self]Social Web[/url] or at least the sites it has rated to be more "sociable" with other sites.
Interesting idea and I can see a usefulness for this as well as some other products that www.similargroup.com has to offer.
However, similarsites.com doesn't seem too reliable in my opinion.
They started up back in April of 2004 so it's not like they're "new."
I agree with some folks who feel that the similar site results have little significance to the source domain.
I suppose they use a site-caching system so once they have a site listed in their DB it can get old and become unreliable. Sites can and do change with time.
I did a test for a site I personally know had been "down" (hosting was terminated and thus no DNS resolved) and is now parked, yet similarsites.com shows an old thumbnailed image (2007 - 2008 era - in 2009 the front page changed to a Level6Studios "design")
The site is www.Ikonboard.com - [url=http://www.similarsites.com/sites-like/ikonboard.com t=_self]look[/url]
While the idea of offering alternative / similar websites on Scorecards could make WOT more functional to it's Community, I think that IF similarsites.com results are going to be displayed, the relevance for the results should also be incorporated into the Scorecard. To explain this easier, if you visit the [url=http://www.similarsites.com/about.aspx t=_self]"About"[/url] page you'll find:
Our similar sites technology combines sophisticated algorithms and user input to achieve the best results for each surfer’s current mindset.
SimilarSites.com takes past user opinions into account when sorting relevant sites. Each search result has “thumbs up” and “thumbs down” buttons, letting users help us determine a site’s relatedness. As more users search and submit feedback, the results get increasingly accurate.
So adding the thumbs up/down while hovering over the scorecard result list would be beneficial for both WOT and SimilarSites.
And for Pete's sake, go to the site when clicking on the similar result, not the Scorecard.
New topic opened for this idea: [url=http://www.mywot.com/en/forum/5710-scorecard-link-to-site t=_self]Scorecard link to site[/url]
WOT Services Ltd. - gives us safety through Web of Trust.
WOT Community - gives us security through unity.
Thank you all
Finding similar websites is
Posted: Sat Mar 06, 2010 4:15 am
Finding similar websites is a difficult thing to do. The technology is not mature yet. It is good to display similar sites according to the poll. The fact of the matter is, users only want the feature when the result is accurate. By the way, similarsites.com is not even the best similar site search engine out there.
Posted: Sat Mar 06, 2010 6:24 am
"If you really like the idea of users being able to find comparable sites from similarsites, then what you should do is have a button on the scorecards that a user can click to pull them up"
Posted: Sat Mar 06, 2010 6:32 am
"deliberately try to misunderstand each other"
Waddya mean "deliberately"? There may indeed be some misunderstandings here, but I don't see anyone "deliberately" misunderstanding. Where do you see it?
"Time for a new poll I suppose"
OK. Sami, please give a link to it if you decide to take another poll.
Posted: Sat Mar 06, 2010 6:45 am
"The inclusion of the 'similar sites' feature does not significantly affect the page loading speed of the ratings page"
While it may not affect certain pages (what do you mean by "ratings page"?), it does indeed, according to [url=http://www.mywot.com/en/forum/5705-similar-sites-now-available-on-the-scorecard?comment=28714#comment-28714 t=_self]ganmerlad[/url], ("I am on dial-up half the time I am online, and that feature just made the scorecards take twice as long to load") have an impact on the loading of the scorecard page.
Perhaps trivial to those of us on broadband, but I can tell you . . . having been on dial up myself not too long ago . . . it is not trivial to dial up users.
Does not equate
Posted: Sat Mar 06, 2010 9:44 am
"not very active and as i suppose not experieneced users"
"Not very active" does not necessarily equate to "not experienced", nor does "very active" necessarily mean it's an "experienced" user.
In fact, without naming names, I can think of a few examples of each circumstance.
I would assume the poll evaluated the opinions of NEW users in addition to "old" users, but they may be experienced . . . or NOT.
And my sense, as you say also, is that the NEW users voted more for it than the "old" users, though we could be wrong. Sami? Did the new users respond to the poll more than the "old" users?
Posted: Sat Mar 06, 2010 1:03 pm
It is a new useful possibility - when the system of the site works.
Otherwise it is not very useful.
The time promotes the development.
Attention before visit or rating a site!