Guidelines refreshed

№3344
Posts: 377
Joined: Sun Nov 18, 2012 2:28 pm

RE: Guidelines refreshed

Post by №3344 » Fri Jun 17, 2016 11:50 pm

Sorry c۞g for cutting your HTML formattings off the quote below, I have just highlighted the part of your text that I want to reply to (making a proper html reformatting is kinda hugely difficult task for me these days).

<quote user="c۞g">
"recycling" is a product of the mass rating tool, it is impossible to make each comment for an entered list of domains unique, although if the !domain variable is used, comments can appear to be more specific per evaluation. IF a user does not have access to the MRT there is nothing wrong with having identical comments for a list of domains being individually rated while they share the same reason for the ratings.
[/quote]

I found line in Russian:
[cite]Старайтесь не оставлять одни и те же комментарии на нескольких сайтах, так как каждый комментарий должен описываться как можно понятнее.[/cite]

It's translation from:
[cite]Try not to recycle the same comments for multiple websites, as each should describe the commented site as well as possible.[/cite]

I completely disagree with this dictatorial rule. Look at my comments - I have rated many dubious loan websites (that are almost scams in my opinion - loan sharks) leaving the same comment for each of them. And every my comment DOES MAKE sense. So what the heck do I have to do with commenting these sites with different text? I see NO reason to leave different comments in this case = these sites are all equal in their doings.

Edit: it's extremely contradicting MRT function, no doubt.

User avatar
Satchman
Posts: 691
Joined: Mon Dec 28, 2009 1:08 pm

RE: Guidelines refreshed

Post by Satchman » Sat Jun 18, 2016 3:25 am

<quote user="nick vini">
Mainly, regardless which website has green reputation on WOT, forbidding links to green sites contradicts the main goal of this community - trust on the web. To be exact: WOT by the rules bans green live link, because it may be suspicious - don't you think it's the biggest nonsense? It gives me impression that WOT team are questioning websites reputations calculated by their own system</me>.
[/quote]

Agree 100%,

If not everyone agrees with the green rating of a Site, Cnet is the biggest example of this, (A site that has known PUPS and malware in it's downloads, but has been rated green for years.) it is our responsibility, as a community, to re-rate it appropriately to reflect it's current level of trust as best as possible

Satch

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

RE: Guidelines refreshed

Post by c۞g » Sat Jun 18, 2016 8:49 am

<quote uer="armored">That's what I thought, but when you read something like this in the guidelines:
[cite]Originally posted by: Guidlines
When posting websites and links:
Please do not post live links when referencing a website or page that's not part of mywot.com.[/cite]
It clearly gives the impression that what you are saying is wrong. Websites with green reputations are still NOT part of mywot.com, and if we are to apply the current Forum guidlines on this point literally (I know that some moderators do) Therefore we still shouldn't post links to such websites regardless how green they are.[/quote]

The forum has a search facility that incorporates a non-Wot domain:

Code: Select all

https://encrypted.google.com/#q=site:www.mywot.com+inurl%3Aforum+SEARCH_QUERY
IF the current Guidelines are expected to be adhered to, then the Dev Team needs to design their own forum search and kill the redirect to Google from: https://search.mywot.com/
Not to mention displaying the rating icon for Google domains in a Google search; ie:
https://encrypted.google.com/search?q=google

<quote user="armored">
[cite]Originally posted by: c۞g
This is why the ability to use HTML tags is offered when posting replies: :
&nbsp;
Image
&nbsp;
Trusted site or currently green reputation[/cite]

Unfortunately what is written in the guidelines and how the Forum software is built and what it allows us to do is nothing but a MASSIVE contradiction. That ability contradicts the guidelines. [/quote]

I'm not sure how many remember, but this entire website was originally created using the open-source CMS: Drupal
Timo had modified it so much I doubt the original core remotely resembles Drupal anymore (which may be a reason for the current Dev Team's inability to squash bugs rising from what they feel to be minor aesthetic updates). Forum HTML tags can be removed, modified, or created (like the color tags we use here, or the !domain variable used with the MRT)

<quote user="armored">That's why there is some confusion among some of the moderators on this point. With respect you guys aren't all on the same page with this issue-This needs to be cleared up once and for all.[/quote]

There's no confusion for me.
As long as the Site Evaluation form constructs a potentially live link for any domain,
the forums incorporate off-site functionality such as:
search via Google
translate via Yandex

Footer links to outside domains:
Facebook
Twitter

Blog articles referencing websites with no reputation or having an [yellow]unsatisfactory[/yellow] or [red]lower[/red] reputation

Incorporation of third party tools such as: vwo.com - scorecard

Then as a moderator, I have no problem with live links being posted as long as they are deemed Trusted by the Community ([green]green[/green]).

№3344
Posts: 377
Joined: Sun Nov 18, 2012 2:28 pm

RE: Guidelines refreshed

Post by №3344 » Sat Jun 18, 2016 12:38 pm

<quote user="satchman">
it is our responsibility, as a community, to re-rate it appropriately to reflect it's current level of trust as best as possible
[/quote]

Good point.

Generally it applies for this rating system. Indicating green reputation for a site should not be represented as something "may be suspicious" on the team's part. Banning links to green sites by rules is representing this extremely serious contradiction.

If one would ask me: WOT team are banning all links having a good reputation, does that mean the WOT team are considering their rating system as suspicious?

I would answer: Yes, it does.

Then why should I trust their reputation data if they are suspicious of their reputation data themselves?

User avatar
Armored
Posts: 316
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2010 10:38 am

RE: Guidelines refreshed

Post by Armored » Sun Jun 19, 2016 10:26 am

<quote user="c۞g">
The forum has a search facility that incorporates a non-Wot domain:

Code: Select all

https://encrypted.google.com/#q=site:www.mywot.com+inurl%3Aforum+SEARCH_QUERY
IF the current Guidelines are expected to be adhered to, then the Dev Team needs to design their own forum search and kill the redirect to Google from: https://search.mywot.com/
Not to mention displaying the rating icon for Google domains in a Google search; ie:
https://encrypted.google.com/search?q=google
[/quote] Completely agree. It's a contradiction and hypocrisy.

<quote user="c۞g">
There's no confusion for me.
As long as the Site Evaluation form constructs a potentially live link for any domain,
the forums incorporate off-site functionality such as:
search via Google
translate via Yandex

Footer links to outside domains:
Facebook
Twitter

Blog articles referencing websites with no reputation or having an [yellow]unsatisfactory[/yellow] or [red]lower[/red] reputation

Incorporation of third party tools such as: vwo.com - scorecard

Then as a moderator, I have no problem with live links being posted as long as they are deemed Trusted by the Community ([green]green[/green]).
[/quote] That's because your using common sense and your reasonable-I'm in 100% agreement with your stance. Like I said though some moderators apply that guideline literally/word for word/black and white. Moderators need to be on the same page and enforce rules harmoniously. My 5 cents: That stupid guideline needs to be amended or re-worded.


User avatar
Armored
Posts: 316
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2010 10:38 am

RE: Guidelines refreshed

Post by Armored » Sun Jun 19, 2016 10:28 am

<quote user="nick vini">
This restriction is causing lots of problems for those who post useful comments; they have to append something unnecessary........it's even harmful than useless.
[/quote] It's plain stupid


№3344
Posts: 377
Joined: Sun Nov 18, 2012 2:28 pm

RE: Guidelines refreshed

Post by №3344 » Sun Jun 19, 2016 10:30 am

<quote user="armored">
My 5 cents: That stupid guideline needs to be amended or re-worded.
[/quote]

... as soon as possible until all good users leave.

User avatar
MyWOT-Team
Posts: 316
Joined: Mon Nov 30, 2015 12:05 pm

RE: Guidelines refreshed

Post by MyWOT-Team » Sun Jun 19, 2016 11:38 am

Having originally intended this update to help clarify one specific point within our guidelines, it's clear that this needs to be updated further to clarify the points that you all brought up. We will clarify this soon and apologies for the confusion that this caused.

№3344
Posts: 377
Joined: Sun Nov 18, 2012 2:28 pm

RE: Guidelines refreshed

Post by №3344 » Sun Jun 19, 2016 6:29 pm

In addition to improvements you should made for your guidelines.

You will save your volunteer folks from doing tons of useless work, if you:
Give moderators function to edit others posts;
Give moderators powers to ban users.

Your mods are getting into biggest trouble with lots of:
Trolls;
Spammers;
Flooders;
Offtopics;
Personal issues being posted publicly instead of private messages.

Mods are not able to do anything but have to constantly hide posts and warn users until you ban them for numerous violations; you should trust your mods just like you trust yourself. They are helping you, so it's time to help them too.

User avatar
Armored
Posts: 316
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2010 10:38 am

RE: Guidelines refreshed

Post by Armored » Sun Jun 19, 2016 11:39 pm

<quote user="nick vini">
Give moderators function to edit others posts;
Give moderators powers to ban users.
[/quote] Agree with the editing post part, obviously the moderator will need to provide a time stamp on the original post stating that they edited it.

I don't agree with the power to Ban users I think it's to much power:) I have seen it happen on occasions that moderators and regular users such as myself suspect people of having multiple accounts when in reality we didn't have solid evidence. Only people who have access to IP information ect should have that kind of power. This is going a bit off-topic and probably merits a separate thread, but IF such power was to be granted a lot of safeguards need to be put in place to prevent abuse or moderators banning people for frivolous reasons such as their feelings getting hurt in a discussion.

No offence but I think we already have some over zealous moderation and numerous posts get hidden that shouldn't be hidden. because of literal application of the guidelines as mentioned above or just super strict moderation. Imagine the power to ban was granted!??




Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 3 guests