General discussion
fifth wot category
Tue Jul 22 15:26:41 2008 – wehaveitallSorry it's been a while since I've posted, monitor issues...
Anyway,
I was thinking about the wot categories. Since wot is a system based on user reputations, we have the oppurtunity to check a website's safety in every way. And I think one necessary aspect of safety may be missing.
To describe my category, I will give you an example in the case of a website:
Take a virus scanner or spyware scanner such as windows defender or mcafee. They don't lie about what viruses are. They don't invade your privacy or steal personal information. They don't scam you, and they are safe for children. But do they protect you? Not much, especially windows defender. In a way that can result in a site being unsafe, because it makes you think your safe, when you're not, which can lead to you having viruses and you not knowing it.
Are you starting to understand? Let's take another example:
Say you had a program that's supposed to speed up your computer. They say it's the best thing in the world and that you have to pay for it. I forget the name, but there is a program like that, and all it does is open a program or link upon clicked several times at once, and the first one to open is the one they use. They don't tell you that. That can just overload your computer when it's trying to process too much, uses up ram, and doesn't speed up your computer much at all, if any.
Some could say this goes with trustworthiness, but does it? That program that speeds up your computer had light green in every category. It doesn't lie. It tends to just not be what you expected.
Another example could be incredimail. It doesn't mention that it's an email client, and that it blocks other email clients. It makes it seem like it just adds emotions to any email. But they don't lie.
The category could be called reliability. It could be called accuracy. I just think that that is an important part of security.Not knowing that a program you bought is only overpowering your computer, or that a virus scanner isn't really protecting you, or that a program is really not what it seems and becomes your only email client, should be addressed.
Thanks for reading, and please leave your comments and questions.
-Ben
- Anmelden oder Registrieren um Kommentare zu schreiben
That sounds good and
Tue Jul 22 22:34:52 2008 – Security_WizThat sounds good and do-able, but many ratings for websites would go way down, causing a false warning or denying access to the certain website.
(I may not understand your point, so sorry if this reply turns out wrong.)
Very good point
Tue Jul 22 23:57:45 2008 – wehaveitallVery good point, I would never have thought of that. Perhaps we could make that rating count for less in optimized answer of whether a site is safe or not in google results, and also make it not trigger a warning? Or maybe a new setting could be added where if only that category is red, it just triggers a small warning, such as a little alert at the top of the page, instead of covering up the whole page.
Thank you very much for bringing that up.
-Ben
Re: fifth wot category
Wed Jul 23 09:24:00 2008 – SamiActually, we had this rating component in 2005–2006 when we first started testing the concept. It turned out people didn't really understand the difference between "reliability" and trustworthiness, so we dropped it.
We also had this two-dimensional display that would show you the reputation and the confidence in one picture:
Just about everyone thought it was way too confusing. We thought it looked cool. Live and learn.
Well..
Wed Aug 20 02:55:55 2008 – wehaveitallWell, most of the community seems to be more experienced now. Perhaps having the category being shown as an option.
There is a category I think that may be missing however unless I'm missing something. As much as I would like that category to be added, it's not necessary. A category that is necessary however is something such as spam. A category that would distinguish a site that gives out spammy emails. Honestly I don't know which category I would rate orange with a site such as godaddy, that is perfectly safe, but fairly spammy.
Accuracy or trustworthy..?
Thu Aug 21 21:41:47 2008 – phantazmwehaveitall: "The category could be called reliability. It could be called accuracy. I just think that that is an important part of security.Not knowing that a program you bought is only overpowering your computer, or that a virus scanner isn't really protecting you, or that a program is really not what it seems and becomes your only email client, should be addressed."
It looks as if your examples deal more with 'Truth vs. Whole Truth' than accuracy.
Not some details missing, but more a question of questionable motives.
I'd rather equal 'reliable' with 'trustworthy' than 'accurate'.
Exagerated claims may have all details correct,
yet morally be floating between Truth an Lies.
But thanks to WOTs flexible rainbow rating,
that position can be finetuned... :)