General discussion

Yes, I can tell you're mad. I'm also sensing that you may have failed to understand how WOT works, although I did my best to explain it to you the first time you contacted us three weeks ago. I'm glad to see you haven't lost your fighting spirit and litigious attitude despite my failure to address your concerns.

Please let me recap some of the points I tried to make earlier:

• We don't place "domain-wide blocks" or set ratings arbitrarily. Our users rate websites, we compute reputations from the ratings and show you the results on the add-on. As more ratings come in, reputations will fluctuate accordingly.
• This means that if you disagree with a site's reputation, you should always give your own rating. I'm not sure if I can emphasize this enough. This is the only way to affect the ratings. Sending us multiple angry rants through all available channels rarely helps. So, watch the video, open the rating window, and off you go!
• Our software doesn't block access to websites unless you have specifically requested this. You can always bypass the warnings and blocking by giving your own rating. Users who would rather not be bothered at all when visiting sites of questionable reputation can also turn off any annoyances from the settings.
• We rate domains, not individual pages. We understand this impedes our ability to accurately rate each page on a shared domain, but I assure you it has nothing to do with us being lazy. This may change in future, but for now, we actually have good reasons for rating only domains.
• In the mean while, if you don't want your site's reputation to be tarnished when other users on the same domain put up scam sites, distribute malware, and engage in other illegal activities that might hurt the domain's vendor reliability, you may want to consider registering your own domain name. This is already very popular among other sites that are number one in their genres.

If you have any further concerns, please don't hesitate to contact us. We would be delighted to straighten out any remaining misunderstandings.

Yes, i agree with the "neighborhood" idea of affecting pages because of the domain.
Yes, the trust that should be put on a domain that allows bad behavior (scams, spy ware, etc. --as is the case with some tripod pages--) should be low, even near to reject such domains.
Yes, more granularity for all domains would affect all your business. More costs would be involved as more traffic would be needed.

But, as you have said: "no matter what we chose, some compromises have to be made".
Now: we are compromising to NOT have a detailed picture of mixed domains. Places where good and bad things coexist. Domains where responsible parties are DIFFERENT individuals. Individuals with different interests. Not all good, some bad. A question naturally comes to my mind, Is there a better way?

Future: Could you compromise?. Here is my proposal:
Give ONE more level of granularity ONLY on shared domains.

Shared domains are known, not that many. Increase in traffic would be minimum . All parties would reach a better compromise.

Thanks Sami for your interest in this.

I believe your system is a service, as a service, it should tend to "service" those who ask for it (please excuse the repetition). Set up a pilot, let the users that are in need ask to be included. Set rules for acepting sites and in no time you would be servicing most of your users.
I don't see that creating a comprehensive list must be done beforehand. Apply a "80-20" rule (80 percent of the results come from 20 percent of the effort).

And let it grow on "as needed" basis measuring the number of requests from your users.

Just my two cents worth of help.