Criticism thread for my ratings methodology

Posts: 507
Joined: Fri Apr 06, 2012 11:32 pm

RE: Criticism thread for my ratings methodology

Post by nova7 » Thu Oct 06, 2016 12:00 pm

@Supported, one always runs a risk deciding between malware detectors. Virustotal being an on-demand scanner, it wouldn't have detections for files if never submitted. And, without samples they can't be submitted now to compare the results with X-Force.

Posts: 1584
Joined: Sun Jan 05, 2014 5:15 pm

RE: Criticism thread for my ratings methodology

Post by drsumit » Fri Oct 07, 2016 4:49 am

<quote user="nova7">
Recent occurances of SEO spam at universities:

You have to give them credit for their ingenuity - inserting page background colour text in these top university
webpages to boost gambling sites is thinking out of the box. The sad part is most of these sites run on outdated wordpress
which are easily hacked .

User avatar
Posts: 4154
Joined: Sat Mar 05, 2011 6:18 am

RE: Criticism thread for my ratings methodology

Post by Myxt » Fri Oct 07, 2016 9:15 am

<quote user="supported">
Disclaimer: this post may be retroactively edited for quality assurance purposes.


- I am not sure there is a point to scoring against the grain ...
- Impact on Personal Conscience - I’m afraid of opening any doors I can’t close. I’m afraid of the possibility of unfairly damaging or otherwise attacking the reputation or business of an institution that is likely both innately well-intentioned and the innocent victim of some unrelated, malicious party.

Please don't.

Moz and similar Internet marketing based analytics focus disproportionately upon authoritative search rank, just as Alexa reports nothing about your site if it ranks less than 100K. A simple Google search reveals that my small site is back-linked by many more sites than Moz will report because those sites aren't important enough.

In the spirit of Halloween ...

Consider that you and I visit a highly respected retailer of chocolate. While we browse, I notice someone skulking around the store, fiddling with the products. Then I notice him remove one chocolate from a box, plunge a syringe of cyanide into it, and carefully replace it into the box.

Shortly, you select a fine variety box of 50 chocolates, quickly pay for it, and head for the door; and I realize it is that very box. Now I am faced with a dilemma: Do I shout to warn you that this is a gift to die for, or do I protect the retailer's good name and avoid causing you undue stress?


Keep in mind that the store offers many thousands of other perfectly "safe" products, so there is low probability that any customer would choose that specific box; and the owner is a model citizen who contributes to worthy charities, actively participates in his community, and volunteers his spare time to help the underprivileged.

Perhaps I shouldn't go against the grain.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests