Suggestion for a new category of comments

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

information about security

Post by c۞g » Thu Feb 04, 2010 5:39 am

No.
WOT is not about security
WOT is about people sharing their experiences with a website and offering those experiences to others in the form of Reputation.

A shopping site, could be legitimate - they have addresses and phone numbers, and people, that validate, there is nothing malicious on the site attacking your PC, they do not send out spam, nor do they abuse your PII information. They can get rated red just because they simply ripped you off. They sold you low-grade product, or never shipped the purchased item(s) out, etc. etc. A site like that gets a bad reputation, and that is what WOT was originally designed for.

Security, just happens to be an added bonus.
-------
WOT Services Ltd. - gives us safety through Web of Trust.
WOT Community - gives us security through unity.
Thank you all
- G7W

Guest

What about this?

Post by Guest » Thu Feb 04, 2010 11:25 am

Would you disagree with the statement that: "WOT is primarily about security"?

Kraftwerk
Posts: 7981
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2009 12:30 pm

You´re right. But for me,

Post by Kraftwerk » Thu Feb 04, 2010 11:27 am

You´re right. But for me, and as i believe for a lot of other users, security is one of the main concerns, or even the main one of a website.So of course customer experience is another important fact of wot and the sites, but at least a lot of people use wot because of security aspects.But you´re right,i haven´t made it clear in my post

Blueberrycake Level Member of the WOT Community

Guest

I would say that being

Post by Guest » Thu Feb 04, 2010 7:30 pm

I would say that being ripped of is a negative security experience.And I would agree with the statement that WOT is primarily about security.

demonluo
Posts: 1354
Joined: Sun Feb 08, 2009 3:21 pm

for web design just post it

Post by demonluo » Thu Feb 04, 2010 10:21 pm

for web design just post it under the other category...
Platinum Level Member of the WOT Community

SeanW
Posts: 119
Joined: Wed Nov 19, 2008 12:44 am

But if a shop rips you off,

Post by SeanW » Fri Feb 05, 2010 3:47 am

But if a shop rips you off, e.g. steals from you by not shipping what you paid for, isn't that also security, in a sense?

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

security

Post by c۞g » Fri Feb 05, 2010 6:34 am

Read my SIG ;-)

There's a difference between the security ensured by the opinion of others and the security as exampled by using antiMalware / antiVirus software - as far as the Internet is concerned. In most instances when the term security is brought up on these forums, it's used in the sense of AV / antiMalware, etc. and not in the general sense of a "security blanket."

In the [url=http://www.mywot.com/blog/welcome-to-wot t=_self]first post on the blog introducing WOT[/url] the idea of website reputation rating is explained.

If a website forces a Trojan download when visiting it's landing page and you have WOT set to Warn and not Block, unless you have adequate security software installed to catch the threat, you are infected. WOT does not secure you other than informing you the site is not Trustworthy, for whatever reasons.

WOT informs on more than just security related threats. Take Spam for example, it's annoying, it could lead to other threats such as Phishin or Malware, but in itself it's just... spam. Your antiVirus software, on it's own, would not inform you that the links in your email are not safe to visit, whereas WOT will as long as someone makes the first visit and then rates the site accordingly. The same applies to shopping experiences, or any other experience - good or bad - a user may have with the website they rate.

Guest

Defintions

Post by Guest » Fri Feb 05, 2010 8:26 am

I think the meaning of "security" here is the common usage, not the technical definition.

In a lot of cases, like this one, the two are not exactly the same.

If using the technical definition, you may say "No, that's not what it means . . . " And you would be right insofar as the technical definition goes. But it's not the same definition for common usage . . . and. as I said, that is IMO how it's being used here. It's much broader.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: kirstenqf69 and 3 guests