Forum
Comments:
-
- on Thu 19 Feb 2009
- 07:42:04 PM UTC
Shuurl
I think that it is very poor and a practice that should cease. They even redirect to the scorecards and credit should be given where it is due. I would avoid the use of any service that follows such a bad practice and would advise others to boycott them too.
If they wish to use the WOT ratings then surely they should seek the appropriate permission and also give credit to WOT for supplying the information that they are using.
Basically they are simply hijacking WOT's icons etc to make themselves look better, and this would not be considered 'fair play' so I agree completely that this is unfair play and should cease forthwith. -
- on Thu 19 Feb 2009
- 07:46:57 PM UTC
I found it very poor for a
I found it very poor for a new service to act this inappropriately.
Frank J
www.techjaws.com -
- on Thu 19 Feb 2009
- 07:56:55 PM UTC
It's worse than poor, it's
It's worse than poor, it's appalling that anyone can stoop that low. I have seen blogs which have comprised of Q&A's taken from other forums, a forum that also hijacked Y!Q&A to make it appear that there product was being endorsed by well known contributors.........these people have no morals whatsoever.
Colin
http://freepcsecurity.co.uk -
- on Thu 19 Feb 2009
- 07:58:58 PM UTC
Colin, In some cases copying
Colin,
In some cases copying is a form of flattery, but not in this case. It's out-right copyright infringement.
Frank J
www.techjaws.com -
- on Thu 19 Feb 2009
- 08:10:43 PM UTC
I quite agree Frank, and the
I quite agree Frank, and the appropriate steps should be taken to stop such infringement before any more decide to jump on the bandwagon and any such infringement can never be justified.
Colin
http://freepcsecurity.co.uk -
- on Thu 19 Feb 2009
- 08:23:02 PM UTC
Unsatisfactory.
I have rated it useless and gave it a orange score.A bit of a cheek realy.If it gets bad revues it may redirect WOT users away from it.If WOT wishes to take legal action I would not blame it.
-
- on Thu 19 Feb 2009
- 08:59:03 PM UTC
Rated useless too
I have rated it as useless too until such time as copyright theft is corrected. There can be no justification for giving this site any other form of half decent ratings and hopefully the situation will be resolved very soon.
Colin
http://freepcsecurity.co.uk -
- on Thu 19 Feb 2009
- 09:03:36 PM UTC
Colin, Thank you for the
Colin,
Thank you for the support of WOT and let's hope this issue gets corrected. We can make a difference!
Frank J
www.techjaws.com -
- on Thu 19 Feb 2009
- 09:58:50 PM UTC
I blogged about this issue
I blogged about this issue and hope that all of us can submit it to other social networks by visiting the blog at http://www.techjaws.com/new-service-shuurlcom-not-...
Frank J
www.techjaws.com -
- on Fri 20 Feb 2009
- 12:45:50 PM UTC
Blog post
Situation resolved therefore this comment has been edited. More below.
-
- on Thu 19 Feb 2009
- 10:05:13 PM UTC
WOT API
Shuurl is using WOT's API as outlined here: Adding ratings to your website
Shuurl is properly adding the script [view source of output short URL page] like so:
[script type="text/javascript" src="http://api.mywot.com/widgets/ratings.js"][/script]When you hover over the URL you are given the view WOT scorecard.
Isn't this what is supposed to happen when using the API? -
- on Thu 19 Feb 2009
- 10:20:26 PM UTC
Yes, but look how they word
Yes, but look how they word the statement as it's theirs.
"At SHUURL we discovered the answer to this issue, with our service you get a screen shot of the link your about to visit, the actual link that has been shortened and most importantly a safety test which will tell you if the site is safe or not. "
we discovered That statement means you are the owner of the concept. Prove me wrong, but this is clear.
Frank J
www.techjaws.com -
- on Thu 19 Feb 2009
- 11:17:48 PM UTC
Have to agree with Frank
I have to agree with Frank on this because they are claiming that we discovered the answer to this issue.
They did not discover it at all, and yes the widget can be used on websites using WOT's API, and surely any honest site owner / blogger would NOT claim that it was their discovery to safe searching or whatever but would give the credit to WOT and be grateful for the use of the API. -
- on Thu 19 Feb 2009
- 11:21:58 PM UTC
Let me explain!
Hi
Im the owner of Shuurl, basically if you check out the domain whois you will see shuurl is 2 days old.
The site isnt even in beta, the design is not even the planned design and some additional features are not even included currently.
I shared the link with a few friends to help me with testing, Im in shock so many people have heard about the site and visited as its not been "launched."
I would not claimed to have "invented" the WOT rating, and when the site was launched the site would credit WOT and carry a WOT banner.
Thank you for the poor WOT ratings folks, I really didnt expect so many to use it and Im currently trying to finish coding the design.
Sorry for any confusion
-
- on Fri 20 Feb 2009
- 12:37:45 AM UTC
I would never give bad
I would never give bad ratings based on the discover statement. I don't speak for others, but if you are launching a site you should have kept it in close beta as this would have never created this issue. When a site is accessible it's in the public eye.
The fact is that the message claims you as the owner of the concept.
All the best to your site as I think you have a great idea, but let's just get the issue resolved and we all could move on.
Frank J
www.techjaws.com -
- on Fri 20 Feb 2009
- 12:48:03 AM UTC
Beta
It was supposed to be a closed beta only 4/5 people had the link, I haven't had a site like this go so wild so fast.
I have quickly finished my design and hopefully it works now, I have put WOT stuff up since people are actually using it now.
I have also emailed WOT staff to explain and to remove my email address and business info from this thread and I have asked the same of cotojo.
I dont think its fair posting my email and info when nobody actually knew the full story, which I think I explained sufficiently.
-
- on Fri 20 Feb 2009
- 11:14:06 AM UTC
Tropica
As has already been said, it should have been a 'closed beta' but I am sure that many of us will wish you every success now that the issue has been closed and proper credit given. You had a 'leak' somewhere so that Shuurl became known.
I have changed the ratings for your site to positive and I am sure that it will be of great benefit to many users and wish you every success.
Using the WOT API is very imaginative and will add to making the internet a safer place for all users, which is what we all strive toward.
Colin
http://freepcsecurity.co.uk -
- on Fri 20 Feb 2009
- 12:48:30 AM UTC
as requested
Shuurl is now giving WOT proper recognition for the use of the api.
http://www.shuurl.com/K1264
I rated this as a Good Site - it's nice to see a website taking advantage of WOT's generosity, it ensures that users of Shuurl are protected, and who better to do that?peace,
G7W -
- on Fri 20 Feb 2009
- 12:54:59 AM UTC
I Like It
I like it the whole concept really. Using WOT to check every shortened URL and giving a preview would definitely be much safer than immediate redirection. :) I've bookmarked it but TinyURL is still a bit faster but at least now we can know where we are going when we click on a shortened URL....:)
-
- on Fri 20 Feb 2009
- 08:03:29 AM UTC
Shuurl is a great idea
We like it too! What a great idea and imaginative use of the WOT widget. Shuurl fits our goal of making the Internet a safer place for everyone. Well done, Tropica.
The new beta redesign gives WOT credit, so I think that takes care of the issues discussed above. Thanks to Frank J for bringing Shuurl to everyone's attention, and thanks to all of you for defending WOT and insisting that we get credit for our work. This kerfuffle shows how powerful the group voice can be.
Now we move forward offering Tropica and Shuurl our support and best wishes for great success.
-
- on Fri 20 Feb 2009
- 11:49:31 AM UTC
Great news and we should all
Great news and we should all remove any bad ratings. Thank you!
Frank J
www.techjaws.com -
- on Fri 20 Feb 2009
- 12:21:08 PM UTC
Ratings
I have adjusted my rating accordingly and also emailed Tropica as well as a short blog post.
As you said, it should have been closed beta, somehow word got out but it is good to see that proper recognition has now been given and I am sure that it is a service that will be of benefit to many users.
We do have a voice and it can be quite powerful, but we also acknowledge when errors are corrected.
Colin
http://freepcsecurity.co.uk -
- on Sat 21 Feb 2009
- 03:10:05 AM UTC
CLOSED Beta?
Am I misunderstanding something? It doesn't seem like a closed beta...
It's already in google's database (meaning someone submitted it), it's listed in Lifehacker (And was before you made that post), rated by Norton SafeWeb, AND was bookmarked in ziipa (Before you made your post about it being a beta).
Can you clarify?
A big thank you to all the WOT staff
-
- on Sat 21 Feb 2009
- 08:26:28 AM UTC
closed beta
it wasn't submitted to google, google has picked it up from somewhere, the domain is brand new (4 days old at this point, 2 days old at the start of this thread!)
The address was only shared with a few people, its out of my control if google and norton pick it up, as its out of my control if someone blogs about the site.
I have explained myself fully, I have quickly finished and released the beta and proper design, I cant do much more can I?
-
- on Sat 21 Feb 2009
- 11:09:24 AM UTC
I do not see this as a
I do not see this as a problem any longer, the issues were resolved quickly and Shuurl is now in public beta.
At some point someone got hold of it and it is possible that it was blogged about and google could have picked it up from there, or through social bookmaking. -
- on Sat 21 Feb 2009
- 08:04:54 PM UTC
Hi Tropica
I've been there a few times and it looks great :)
I know that some of my readers have also used it also, I'm sure that it will be quite a success and wish you the very best.
Website Shuurl UNFAIR PLAY
What do you think about Shuurl using the WOT widget, icons and ratings and not giving WOT the credit for the ratings?
http://www.shuurl.com
Frank J http://www.techjaws.com