obviously good sites getting low ratings

Post Reply
Guest

Re:

Post by Guest » Mon May 31, 2010 11:07 pm

I'm not sure what specific comments you are referring to, but there are perfectly legit comments that I can think of about these sites (these are just a few I can come up with in a few seconds):

Facebook: privacy; privacy (of users' data) concerns
Gmail: see Google.
Google: privacy: collects huge amount of info on users (I personally have rated this site poor in privacy). - I can elaborate if you want me to.
Youtube: child safety: some videos contain adult content
Wikipedia: trustworthiness: anyone can edit anything, so all pages may not contain accurate information

Even if you don't agree with these comments, it really doesn't matter because the overall reputation of the sites are fine. Also, comments are users' opinions, so unless they contain profanity or other things that break the rules, they are still allowed.

Clean air. Fresh Water. Open space. Pollution is not the Solution.
Nature recycles everything. So should people.

Guest

re

Post by Guest » Mon May 31, 2010 11:36 pm

Facebook: I don't use it, but there seems to be alot of people having issues with privacy. just look around on the web.

Google: stores huge number of cookies, IP addresses, what you search for, when you search for it. Then there's its new "Street View" - got the company in a mess in Europe (mostly Germany, i believe); a laughable privacy policy.
http://www.criminaljusticeusa.com/blog/ ... about-you/
one of my favorite websites: leavegooglebehind.com

Youtube - I agree with you, I think the site is fine, I was just saying what some other people think about it.

Clean air. Fresh Water. Open space. Pollution is not the Solution.
Nature recycles everything. So should people.

Guest

Re: I think bad comments shouldn't be allowed for these sites.

Post by Guest » Mon May 31, 2010 11:47 pm

I think bad comments shouldn't be allowed for these sites.

I see what you're getting at, but there's always a 'what-if' scenario. Say Google is hacked into and the page gave out malware for a few months. Then, the ratings and comments would have to be changed, to protect the WOT community. Of course, that's not likely, but possible.


Clean air. Fresh Water. Open space. Pollution is not the Solution.
Nature recycles everything. So should people.

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

...

Post by c۞g » Mon May 31, 2010 11:54 pm

Sites can be safe but the point of WOT is: "Do users consider them Trustworthy?"
For those who do no, it's nice they take the time to leave a comment as to why.

I think bad comments shouldn't be allowed for these sites
So.. only "good" comments should be left? That's like giving one-sided opinions which is neither "right" nor "fair."

To quote Harlan Ellison from The Deathbird
 
This is a test. Take notes. This will count as 3/4 of your final grade. Hints: remember, in chess, kings cancel each other out and cannot occupy adjacent squares, are therefore all-powerful and totally powerless, cannot affect each other, produce stalemate. Hinduism is a polytheistic religion; the sect of Atman worships the divine spark of life within Man; in effect saying, "Thou art God." Provisos of equal time are not served by one viewpoint having media access to two hundred million people in prime time while opposing viewpoints are provided with a soapbox on the corner. Not everyone tells the truth. Operational note: these sections may be taken out of numerical sequence: rearrange them to suit yourself for optimum clarity. Turn over your test papers and begin


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

QuickMan
Posts: 336
Joined: Tue Mar 30, 2010 4:41 pm

Yahoo!

Post by QuickMan » Tue Jun 01, 2010 12:28 am

Has an problem. Their groups. Sometimes gives you with an message like tons of mails per day. mostly their Yahoo! Messenger has a high risk of spam.

chazsm
Posts: 135
Joined: Sat Dec 26, 2009 11:49 am

Child Safety

Post by chazsm » Tue Jun 01, 2010 8:26 am

Wikipedia is not technically a child-safe site, and although you'd be hard-pushed to find them on a casual browse, articles with 18+ images in them do exist. I believe a few are blocked by the Australian filter.

QuickMan
Posts: 336
Joined: Tue Mar 30, 2010 4:41 pm

Pretty annoying eh?

Post by QuickMan » Tue Jun 01, 2010 2:18 pm

There's one group called psx-iso world public that spams me with a link to a webcam girls everyday, even if I did not join. I know they are groups because it came from Yahoo! itself.

Guest

and why not?

Post by Guest » Tue Jun 01, 2010 2:55 pm

I think bad comments shouldn't be allowed for these sites.
And i think everything is as it should be.
Why would you take me away from my right to rate them low? Who says which site should be protected from low ratings?
If you start to protect some sites from low ratings, i'm sure there are coming hundreds and want the same protection.

Figure10
Posts: 270
Joined: Sun Jun 20, 2010 9:46 pm

'obviously good'

Post by Figure10 » Sun Jun 20, 2010 9:46 pm

Just because a site is well-known or popular doesn't mean it is trustworthy.

Guest

Censorship?

Post by Guest » Tue Jun 22, 2010 4:02 am

@ UlrichStern,

"I think bad comments shouldn't be allowed for these sites."
So you're proposing censorship? As someone in this thread already asked, who decides what is "bad" and should be censored? You?

I'm actually a bit surprised. I see you have achieved a Silver activity level. That means that you have made quite a few ratings and posts, and should know your way around WOT. The statement you made has been addressed over and over in the Wiki, Support area, and other threads here.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests