Page 3 of 8

RE: Guidelines refreshed

Posted: Sun Jan 31, 2016 3:30 pm
by NotBuyingIt
<quote user="c۞g">
[P]eople who like to leave comments on scorecard should be required to rate the site; this reduces babel/spam.
There should not be a "I haven't rated" graphic next to any comment, if a user feels strongly enough to take a moment to comment, they should take a moment and rate.
[/quote]Once in a while, I post a scorecard comment without rating a site. I don't consider this babble or spam and whilst c۞g may not appreciate one of my comments, perhaps somebody else might.

One example: Over the past few years, a site has repeatedly received false accusations of phishing. It offers services on behalf of a major financial institution, but someone occasionally gets suspicious because a followed link from the institution's website goes to a site with a different domain name. I have no strong opinion about the technical aspects of the site or the quality of its services. However, I have taken the time to post a comment in the hope it will forestall additional misunderstanding and "false positives" for phishing.

RE: Guidelines refreshed

Posted: Sat Feb 13, 2016 8:17 am
by c۞g
<quote user="notbuyingit">
Once in a while, I post a scorecard comment without rating a site. I don't consider this babble or spam and whilst c۞g may not appreciate one of my comments, perhaps somebody else might.[/quote]
I appreciate as well as respect your comments and posts, even if we have disagreements and we've had this disagreement for quite sometime.

Back with WOT 1.0 users could leave a comment without rating but were required to select a comment category.

WOT 2.0 changed the structure of the scorecard; comment categories were eliminated and rating categories were introduced. Comments are now part of the rating system.

If you try to comment without rating an error message is displayed in red:

Code: Select all

<div style="display: block;" id="error-category" class="messages error hide"><red>Please choose a category.</red></div>
[/b]

You are directed to:
2. Pick at least one reason to support your rating


Regardless of the category chosen, more likely the selection being "Other," comments now influence the domains perceived reputation where other users may "Agree / Disagree" with a category having no ratings attached.

Comments without ratings have the potential to be biased, prejudicial (harmful intent), or simply spam.
They become general opinions are are frowned upon in WOT's [url=https://www.mywot.com/guidelines t=_self]general guidelines[/url]

Best practices for commenting
* Scorecard comments are not a place to share general opinions about a topic, and should be strictly about your own experience with the website.


RE: Guidelines refreshed

Posted: Sat Feb 13, 2016 2:05 pm
by NotBuyingIt
Comments without ratings have the potential to be biased, prejudicial (harmful intent), or simply spam. ”Comments with ratings have every bit the potential, if not more, to be biased, prejudicial or simply spam.

They become general opinions are are frowned upon in WOT's general guidelines ”I've already given an example of a comment that very obviously is not a general opinion. None of the scorecard comments that I posted are "general" opinions. It is simply untrue that posting a comment without a rating defines the comment as a general opinion or defines it as spam.

RE: Guidelines refreshed

Posted: Thu Jun 16, 2016 8:59 am
by MyWOT-Team
Small guidelines update: Live links to pages on mywot.com are fine.

RE: Guidelines refreshed

Posted: Thu Jun 16, 2016 1:06 pm
by MysteryFCM
<quote user="mywot team">
Small guidelines update: Live links to pages on mywot.com are fine.
[/quote]

I thought live links to sources such as VirusTotal, URLQuery etc were okay too. Has this changed?

RE: Guidelines refreshed

Posted: Thu Jun 16, 2016 2:03 pm
by Guest
@MyWOT team =
I echo MysteryFCM'view
About 40% of the messages in broken links get lost in my hybrid browser in particular, while trying to open a screenshot
Wouldn't it make sense to have white listed sites used in live links?
Take for instance our trusted sites
Thank you
edit -
This idea is from a Russian friend that I totally support!

RE: Guidelines refreshed

Posted: Thu Jun 16, 2016 6:19 pm
by №3344
<quote user="mywot team">
Small guidelines update: Live links to pages on mywot.com are fine.
[/quote]

Were they forbidden before...?

By the way, forbidding users to post live links to other sites will not prevent appearing links on forum; you should prevent your forum software from automatic turning addresses into clickable links instead of getting moderators into trouble with tons of work with removing almost every message containing links (no matter what they are linking to) - do anybody imagine what's that a work?

Seems to be "monkey's job" as we say in Russia. Work for nothing (useless work/in vain) if to translate.

Edit: clarifications added

RE: Guidelines refreshed

Posted: Thu Jun 16, 2016 7:11 pm
by №3344
Sorry people, reviewed guidelines again and I was shocked. Sincerely I was shocked.

A couple current lines:
Main [url=https://www.mywot.com/en/guidelines/forum-guidelines t=_self]from here[/url]:
Please do not post live links when referencing a website or page that's not part of mywot.com.

And then [url=https://www.mywot.com/en/forum/8583-read-this-before-posting-or-requesting-reviews t=_self]from here[/url] (in general):
Please do not post live links when referencing a website.

Come on people, they are having moderators to waste their time removing TONS of messages (including both - new and old existing) containing LIVE LINKS. Needless to say it makes posting for good users highly inconvenient, including newbies who post comments WITHOUT malicious intent.


Mods you are at real risk of going crazy and mad!

RE: Guidelines refreshed

Posted: Thu Jun 16, 2016 8:00 pm
by destinationtruth
and will this new rule also apply to admin that post live links in the blog that are / have been questionable at times; also will you be disabling the live links to Domain Tools on site evaluations.


Just don't think a double standard shows much faith with trusted members that need to make a reference to a trusted site.

RE: Guidelines refreshed

Posted: Thu Jun 16, 2016 9:12 pm
by Site-rater
<quote user="destinationtruth">
and will this new rule also apply to admin that post live links in the blog that are / have been questionable at times; also will you be disabling the live links to Domain Tools on site evaluations.


Just don't think a double standard shows much faith with trusted members that need to make a reference to a trusted site.
[/quote]

I think I have to agree with your point. I just say a blog post yesterday with yellow and silver donuts, the yellow seemed low confidence.