Their counter for how much they raised is clearly fake. It makes it look like someone is buying their product every second because their claim is donating 2 dollars per purchase. However, notice it increases by cents... LOL
Unlike most rogue sites, apparently they also have a verified by Comodo CA limited SSL version of the site. Sneaky way to make users think they're legit.
This site won't look nice once the website is RED.
Just MyWOT and SpywareBlaster, I guess... Found a malicious or fraudulent website? Rate it at WOT ASAP! Found a game hacker? Report it to the game's anti-cheat team! Infected with a virus? Delete it with an antivirus =P
Also, there is that little alert popup - very annoying - asking if you are sure you want to leave the page, sometimes you get two with the second falsely informing you that you are "under attack."
So...
Let's see all the domains and subdomains associated with this "Environmentally Friendly" site/software. BTW, the only "green" they're interested in is your money, LOL.
-------
Against Intuition - gives us safety through Web of Trust.
WOT Community - gives us security through unity.
Thank you all
G7W {G.O.M} http://g7w.net/
Has any other member dealt with Plimus ? I have been dealing through Plimus since 2007/ and have yet to have my account scammed. I have bought the Autoupdates for SpywareBlaster and VistaStartMenu for this long. Now, my question would be , do I expect to have my accounts scammed any time soon or are you referring to the fact that they are taking payments for Rogues ?
How much credence should I instill in the BBB seal on the Plimus site. I will ask the BBB to investigate this claim because they need to know that they are sanctifying a Rogue business. This is what the BBB has on their site for Plimus.com :
BBB processed a total of 138 complaint(s) about this business in the last 36 months, our standard reporting period. Of the total 138 complaint(s) closed in the last 36 months, 46 were closed in the last 12 months.
A few per year would be acceptable (you can not please everyone) for a small to medium company, but this suggests that Plimus's dealing with ROGUES get them in trouble and they still offer the software and the headaches in exchange for profit.
So whose interest do they value, customers or themselves?
They have a few subdomains to.. might make for a separate thread.
-------
Against Intuition - gives us safety through Web of Trust.
WOT Community - gives us security through unity.
Thank you all
G7W {G.O.M} http://g7w.net/
I see your point !!! I will, from now on, find other methods of payment when acquiring a new license for the software that I have mentioned. I will also post a complaint on the BBB site for this company. Although , as I have said, I haven't had any problems so far. I was just lucky I guess , judging from the lists.
Could it be that, these complaints come from the users buying Rogues and demanding a refund ? I also saw that they have offices in Europe where some of the Rogues emanate from. This could be a factor.
In any case g7w, I want to thank you for the response. When I went to the BBB site, it was to make that complaint or more precisely , to ask about Plimus and there practices . I will now just make a Complaint .
Hi All - I'm from Plimus, so perhaps I'm a little biased (!), but let's take a moment to look at what's really going on here.
As a leveler, let's explain who Plimus is. We provide a hosted e-commerce platform, which means companies around the world use our system to sell their digital goods and services online. We serve something in the range of 3,000 merchants each month. From time to time, we certainly get clients who sell, shall we say, questionable products; we also regularly purge the rolls of folks who have stepped over the edge from dodgy to downright wrong. We monitor carefully, and look after the end-customers, but nobody is going to claim we catch every bad offer before someone has a chance to buy from it; the time/space continuum is against us on this one! Hopefully, we can all agree that it takes time to be sure that legitimate sellers are being properly served and less legitimate ones are being dropped.
Plimus is currently Green on McAfee SiteAdvisor and Green on Norton SafeWeb. We maintain these ratings by diligently tracking any suggestion of impropriety and working directly with these very large organizations to make sure that all is well. We welcome the scrutiny and never shrink from the opportunity to protect the consumer. The Red flag mentioned earlier in this thread is a great example of Norton helping us to uncover an offer that was considered unacceptable; and the move back to Green is a great example of our taking the information seriously, making the changes necessary, and getting back our reputation.
To put this into context let's use some numbers. We execute well in excess of 2 million transactions each year. Some of you have pointed to the 138 complaints to the BBB, of which 46 occurred in the last 12 months, Based on our transaction volume, this translates to somewhere in the realm of 0.002% of transactions leading to complaints; or if you prefer, 99.998% of transactions NOT resulting in unhappiness. You may argue that not everyone who is unhappy complains, which is absolutely true. At the same time, everyone who complains is not necessarily doing so advisedly: we treat all the complaints seriously, and work to make the customer happy, but do bear in mind that on occasion someone will misinterpret a situation and discover, on deeper analysis, that Plimus actually hasn't hurt them at all.
Quoting Plimus as being not Green in WOT is really a bit self-referential, being as how we're looking at WOT right now. Let me reiterate, more than 2 million sales go through our platform annually, and as you can imagine, a much higher number of consumers get as far as the order form (and thus our website) and decide on balance not to purchase; we of course also maintain a corporate website that attracts a whole slew of hits. According to the WOT Score Card, there is a total of 15 comments, of which 8 are colored red. Yet when I install WOT and head over to Plimus.com I'm warned against it. I don't know what algorithm WOT is using, but the numbers pretty clearly don't add up.
Services like WOT have the potential to make the Web a much safer place for the consumer, and Plimus is enthusiastic to work together to achieve this unassailable goal. We're working much more closely with Norton and McAfee these days, and would be happy to reach out to WOT and get some safeguards in place. Where something like WOT doesn't help the online community is in blithely labeling websites unsafe without putting the safeguards in place to ensure that legitimate businesses aren't tarred with a statistically-unsupportable brush.
However you feel about the WOT service, please don't be misled into thinking Plimus is somehow scamming you. We're running at a very high satisfaction level, and are committed to your safety. Know that we are 100% committed to ensuring everybody is protected, your transactions are secure, and that we do not become a haven for dubious deals.
If you've any questions, and are wondering if there are real people back here, feel free to send me a PM at simonj @ plimus.com...we're real for sure, and we're doing everything we can to make the Web a genuinely safe place to buy and sell.
czigh: "According to the WOT Score Card, there is a total of 15 comments, of which 8 are colored red. Yet when I install WOT and head over to Plimus.com I'm warned against it. I don't know what algorithm WOT is using, but the numbers pretty clearly don't add up."
You're making the mistake of equating comments with ratings. While comments may reflect how a particular person rated, comments ARE NOT the same as ratings. Not all people who rate leave a comment on their rating . . . that's not required to rate. You can rate without leaving a comment.
Some leave comments to explain why they rated in a particular way, but comments count for absolutely nothing.. So, your "numbers don't add up" calculation is meaningless. I have no idea what the actual numbers (of ratings, not comments) are, nor would anyone else know except the WOT staff.
czigh: "Where something like WOT doesn't help the online community is in blithely labeling websites unsafe without putting the safeguards in place to ensure that legitimate businesses aren't tarred with a statistically-unsupportable brush."
That argument seems to be based ("statistcally-unsupportabe brush") on your erroneous interpretation of comments as ratings, and comments reflecting totals and proportions.
As far as the "safeguards", one of the strongest that WOT has is weighting the votes of those with less ratings. For example, if a user only has 25 ratings, versus a user that has 1000 ratings, the user with 1000 ratings (assuming all other factors are equal, particularly reliabilty of those ratings), carries a lot more weight. If the user with 1000 ratings goes green and the user with 25 ratings goes red, the green rating carries much more weight than the red rating. WOT is a meritocracy. You have to earn the weight your vote gets. That's a big safeguard
And I hardly think that the rating community applies ratings "blithely". If you hang around here for any length of time you will see some of the sophisticated tools raters use to dig deep into DNS, IP, and Email header info, etc., and you will also see that the community is fair and open to changing ratings when warranted. That is something that SA and Norton are much slower at . . . you can post your objections here, as you have done, and if they are specific to certain elements discussed, which you've done partially (you rebutted the BBB info with some statistics, but you failed to answer why, for example, Plimus is blacklisted by several reputable sites, and g7w's comment that "Also, there is that little alert popup - very annoying - asking if you are sure you want to leave the page, sometimes you get two with the second falsely informing you that you are "under attack."), the community will gladly take another look at their ratings. That is something that SA takes up to a year to do .
Please don't take my tone as abrasive, but with the exception of your discussion of BBB stats, most of your reply is non-substantive marketing hype (example: "Know that we are 100% committed to ensuring everybody is protected" . . . a worthy sentiment but neverthless with NO substance).
The community will need something a lot more substantial besides just an analysis of BBB stats and vague marketing claims, in order to use their tools again.
You made a long post, I've had a long hard day, so I'll make my reply short.
Plimus's business is theirs (and apparently yours), not mine.
The BBB online report speaks for itself - I just copied some results. Iyt's your busiess to satisify your customers... not mine.
Plimus is currently Green on McAfee SiteAdvisor and Green on Norton SafeWeb.
I use neither of those two; I don't even lurk their ratings to use as reference. Norton, I personally have no idea about, I guess you need Norton installed for it to work and Norton AV is crap aloong with their "tools." Concerning Site Advisor... it can take them up to a year to obtain a proper rating on a site, that makes them a day late and a dollar short with me. So ... I use WOT, it's highly accurate and constantly updated.
According to the WOT Score Card, there is a total of 15 comments, of which 8 are colored red. Yet when I install WOT and head over to Plimus.com I'm warned against it. I don't know what algorithm WOT is using, but the numbers pretty clearly don't add up.
The WOT Scorecard basically has 2 sectiions.
First = ratings: Trustworthiness, Venfor Reliability, Privacy, Child Safety
This is what earns the overall reputation of the site the card is associated to (domain name or IP or both - if IP is dedicated to domain) When a WOT user rates a site, it's like casting a vote in a Democratic election. No one sees who voted for who, and in WOT no one sees who rated or how they rated.
Second = comments.
Consider this opinions, facts (normally referenced), a means to enter a description and the comment does not need to reflect the rating. Example, I find a site that is not malicious, not a scam or spammer, a fairly good site but the content on it is for mature audiences, not children and not in a pornographis sense either, I rate the Child Safety low and I comment with a red Adult Content category - that doesn't mean I rated the entire Site red.
I can rate a site and not leave a comment; in fact that is what most WOT users do.
What we do on these Forums is try to protect other WOT users by bringing up dangerous sites and quickly commenting on them and rateing them so others may be warned ahead of time; ultimately it's up to the visitor as to how they decide to rate a site if they even care to.
A quick note about Plimus.com's rating...
It was red before it was mentioned in this thread, you see a site with as much traffic as you state Plimus gets... 8 or 10 ratings from this Forum would not have much of an impact in changing the color on the card, all we could do is enter comments or reference this thread.
From time to time, we certainly get clients who sell, shall we say, questionable products; we also regularly purge the rolls of folks who have stepped over the edge from dodgy to downright wrong.
This is where WOT differs from McAfee and Norton; they may settle upon "dodgy and questionable products" but the WOT Community does not. ROGUES my friend are ROGUES they are identified, labeled and rated accordingly, you'll see them reverenced on consumer complaint areas such as ripoff.com and complaintsboard,com not to mention the BBB. If I were Plimus, I would look more closely at a clients product line before allowing those products to pass through Plimus's market space. After all, if your not part of the solution, then you're part of the problem and you'll reap the rewards due.
It's nice to see that you and Plimus wish to repair reputation.
May I suggest that you look at each and every domain you hold, their associated IP and clear them from the block/blacklists they are mentioned on. I displayed just 2 in my prior post, I'm sure that if I wanted to take the time to really dig into plimus I could find more. I'll let you do that - it takes a lot of time digging a site as I do using other online sites as my "tools."
Don't take this reply or what I've stated in this thread personally...
I just dig sites and report my findings.
peace,
-------
Against Intuition - gives us safety through Web of Trust.
WOT Community - gives us security through unity.
Thank you all
G7W {G.O.M} http://g7w.net/
Tue 26 May 2009 06:55:31 PM UTC — cod head (not verified)
I like that intelligent well thought out reply.I cannot think of a thing to add to it.Lets see what czigh's reply is.A big sigh from me.(G.O.M.with Honours).
Green software? Who's idea was that? Everything on that page is obviously fake, even the purchase counter. And price it right, it's 89.90, not 89,90. And if you leave, it gives you that "Are you sure you want to leave" crap that looks just like those free ringtone pop-ups. Tell me if you see something that's not conned.
This is the Internet.
Different countries use different characters for decimal places with currency.
89,90 is not USA but many others on the Planet use a comma instead of a period.
-------
Against Intuition - gives us safety through Web of Trust.
WOT Community - gives us security through unity.
Thank you all
G7W {G.O.M} http://g7w.net/
are a bit off topic
but as pointed out, many separators are used in financial expressions on a global scale.
Grouping separators should help you understand.
-------
WOT Services Ltd. - gives us safety through Web of Trust.
WOT Community - gives us security through unity.
Thank you all
- G7W
Rated and Commented
Sun 24 May 2009 06:01:03 PM UTC — GalaxyfoxLOL. Anyway, rated and commented.
Their counter for how much they raised is clearly fake. It makes it look like someone is buying their product every second because their claim is donating 2 dollars per purchase. However, notice it increases by cents... LOL
Unlike most rogue sites, apparently they also have a verified by Comodo CA limited SSL version of the site. Sneaky way to make users think they're legit.
Spread your knowledge and help everyone stay safe on the web.
Visit http://wintechpedia.blogspot.com for tech tips and guides.
avast! objected when I went to look at the price
Sun 24 May 2009 07:34:32 PM UTC — YoKennyI had to disable my HOSTS file to see the site as it is rated as a bogus malware remover:
http://hosts-file.net/default.asp?s=greenantivirus...
RED rated
Brown
Sun 24 May 2009 08:24:19 PM UTC — ReprotectedThis site won't look nice once the website is RED.
Just MyWOT and SpywareBlaster, I guess... Found a malicious or fraudulent website? Rate it at WOT ASAP! Found a game hacker? Report it to the game's anti-cheat team! Infected with a virus? Delete it with an antivirus =P
re: "Environmentally Friendly" Rogue
Sun 24 May 2009 09:55:45 PM UTC — g7wSo to show how much we care we desided to send $2 from each product sale on saving green forests in Amazonia.
$89,90
Esteblishing ?
Esteblishing secure connection...
Please, press "OK" if prompted.
OK!
plimus.com - order page loads in frame.
(hxxps://www.plimus.com/jsp/buynow.jsp?contractId=2266098)
Rate plimus RED; when I rated it, it was from a SpywareDetector link
Page source reveals a couple of interesting items:
<iframe src="http://www.google.com" width=0 height=0 frameborder=0 scrolling=no></iframe>
<script language="javascript" type="text/javascript" src="http://onlinevirusscanner.info/getCookie.php"></scirpt>
Also, there is that little alert popup - very annoying - asking if you are sure you want to leave the page, sometimes you get two with the second falsely informing you that you are "under attack."
So...
Let's see all the domains and subdomains associated with this "Environmentally Friendly" site/software. BTW, the only "green" they're interested in is your money, LOL.
RATE = RED
(links open WOT Scorecards)
plimus.com
onlinevirusscanner.info
IP: 70.38.73.28
files.greenantivirus2009.com
greenantivirus2009.com
ip-70-38-73-28.static.privatedns.com
mail.greenantivirus2009.com
IP: 200.115.173.29
ns1.av2010pro.com
ns1.download-av2010.info
ns2.av2010pro.com
ns2.download-av2010.info
onlinevirusscanner.info
virusremover-2008.com
av-2009.info
host-200-115-173-29.ccipanama.com
-------
Against Intuition - gives us safety through Web of Trust.
WOT Community - gives us security through unity.
Thank you all
G7W {G.O.M}
http://g7w.net/
Plimus !!
Mon 25 May 2009 05:33:26 AM UTC — AthloniteHas any other member dealt with Plimus ? I have been dealing through Plimus since 2007/ and have yet to have my account scammed. I have bought the Autoupdates for SpywareBlaster and VistaStartMenu for this long. Now, my question would be , do I expect to have my accounts scammed any time soon or are you referring to the fact that they are taking payments for Rogues ?
How much credence should I instill in the BBB seal on the Plimus site. I will ask the BBB to investigate this claim because they need to know that they are sanctifying a Rogue business. This is what the BBB has on their site for Plimus.com :
https://www.bbb.org/online/consumer/cks.aspx?ID=10...
I hope this is a misunderstanding on my part and maybe , I am paranoid at the fact that Plimus has been collecting my info. for the last 2 1/2 years.
Could you make this as clear as possible for me. I am not at ease with this info.
Athlonite.
Your help is always needed.
re: Plimus !!
Mon 25 May 2009 04:43:16 PM UTC — g7wColor is not Green: http://www.mywot.com/en/scorecard/home.plimus.com
They earn their reputation.
bl.spamcannibal.org (spam / DoS attacks)
spam.dnsbl.sorbs.net
order1.net redirects to: home.plimus.com/ecommerce/
plimus.net redirects to: home.plimus.com/ecommerce/
A few per year would be acceptable (you can not please everyone) for a small to medium company, but this suggests that Plimus's dealing with ROGUES get them in trouble and they still offer the software and the headaches in exchange for profit.
So whose interest do they value, customers or themselves?
They have a few subdomains to.. might make for a separate thread.
-------
Against Intuition - gives us safety through Web of Trust.
WOT Community - gives us security through unity.
Thank you all
G7W {G.O.M}
http://g7w.net/
Re-Plimus
Mon 25 May 2009 08:47:02 PM UTC — AthloniteI see your point !!! I will, from now on, find other methods of payment when acquiring a new license for the software that I have mentioned. I will also post a complaint on the BBB site for this company. Although , as I have said, I haven't had any problems so far. I was just lucky I guess , judging from the lists.
Could it be that, these complaints come from the users buying Rogues and demanding a refund ? I also saw that they have offices in Europe where some of the Rogues emanate from. This could be a factor.
In any case g7w, I want to thank you for the response. When I went to the BBB site, it was to make that complaint or more precisely , to ask about Plimus and there practices . I will now just make a Complaint .
Athlonite.
Your help is always needed.
plimus.com
Mon 25 May 2009 02:22:16 AM UTC — YoKennySee:
http://hosts-file.net/default.asp?s=plimus.com <== bogus or fraudulent applications
Rated and commented all,
Mon 25 May 2009 07:36:53 AM UTC — Delan AzabaniRated and commented all, thank you g7w.
Plimus: Hang On A Moment...
Tue 26 May 2009 02:42:50 PM UTC — czighHi All - I'm from Plimus, so perhaps I'm a little biased (!), but let's take a moment to look at what's really going on here.
As a leveler, let's explain who Plimus is. We provide a hosted e-commerce platform, which means companies around the world use our system to sell their digital goods and services online. We serve something in the range of 3,000 merchants each month. From time to time, we certainly get clients who sell, shall we say, questionable products; we also regularly purge the rolls of folks who have stepped over the edge from dodgy to downright wrong. We monitor carefully, and look after the end-customers, but nobody is going to claim we catch every bad offer before someone has a chance to buy from it; the time/space continuum is against us on this one! Hopefully, we can all agree that it takes time to be sure that legitimate sellers are being properly served and less legitimate ones are being dropped.
Plimus is currently Green on McAfee SiteAdvisor and Green on Norton SafeWeb. We maintain these ratings by diligently tracking any suggestion of impropriety and working directly with these very large organizations to make sure that all is well. We welcome the scrutiny and never shrink from the opportunity to protect the consumer. The Red flag mentioned earlier in this thread is a great example of Norton helping us to uncover an offer that was considered unacceptable; and the move back to Green is a great example of our taking the information seriously, making the changes necessary, and getting back our reputation.
To put this into context let's use some numbers. We execute well in excess of 2 million transactions each year. Some of you have pointed to the 138 complaints to the BBB, of which 46 occurred in the last 12 months, Based on our transaction volume, this translates to somewhere in the realm of 0.002% of transactions leading to complaints; or if you prefer, 99.998% of transactions NOT resulting in unhappiness. You may argue that not everyone who is unhappy complains, which is absolutely true. At the same time, everyone who complains is not necessarily doing so advisedly: we treat all the complaints seriously, and work to make the customer happy, but do bear in mind that on occasion someone will misinterpret a situation and discover, on deeper analysis, that Plimus actually hasn't hurt them at all.
Quoting Plimus as being not Green in WOT is really a bit self-referential, being as how we're looking at WOT right now. Let me reiterate, more than 2 million sales go through our platform annually, and as you can imagine, a much higher number of consumers get as far as the order form (and thus our website) and decide on balance not to purchase; we of course also maintain a corporate website that attracts a whole slew of hits. According to the WOT Score Card, there is a total of 15 comments, of which 8 are colored red. Yet when I install WOT and head over to Plimus.com I'm warned against it. I don't know what algorithm WOT is using, but the numbers pretty clearly don't add up.
Services like WOT have the potential to make the Web a much safer place for the consumer, and Plimus is enthusiastic to work together to achieve this unassailable goal. We're working much more closely with Norton and McAfee these days, and would be happy to reach out to WOT and get some safeguards in place. Where something like WOT doesn't help the online community is in blithely labeling websites unsafe without putting the safeguards in place to ensure that legitimate businesses aren't tarred with a statistically-unsupportable brush.
However you feel about the WOT service, please don't be misled into thinking Plimus is somehow scamming you. We're running at a very high satisfaction level, and are committed to your safety. Know that we are 100% committed to ensuring everybody is protected, your transactions are secure, and that we do not become a haven for dubious deals.
If you've any questions, and are wondering if there are real people back here, feel free to send me a PM at simonj @ plimus.com...we're real for sure, and we're doing everything we can to make the Web a genuinely safe place to buy and sell.
"Blithe"??
Tue 26 May 2009 06:48:45 PM UTC — BobJamczigh: "According to the WOT Score Card, there is a total of 15 comments, of which 8 are colored red. Yet when I install WOT and head over to Plimus.com I'm warned against it. I don't know what algorithm WOT is using, but the numbers pretty clearly don't add up."
You're making the mistake of equating comments with ratings. While comments may reflect how a particular person rated, comments ARE NOT the same as ratings. Not all people who rate leave a comment on their rating . . . that's not required to rate. You can rate without leaving a comment.
Some leave comments to explain why they rated in a particular way, but comments count for absolutely nothing.. So, your "numbers don't add up" calculation is meaningless. I have no idea what the actual numbers (of ratings, not comments) are, nor would anyone else know except the WOT staff.
czigh: "Where something like WOT doesn't help the online community is in blithely labeling websites unsafe without putting the safeguards in place to ensure that legitimate businesses aren't tarred with a statistically-unsupportable brush."
That argument seems to be based ("statistcally-unsupportabe brush") on your erroneous interpretation of comments as ratings, and comments reflecting totals and proportions.
As far as the "safeguards", one of the strongest that WOT has is weighting the votes of those with less ratings. For example, if a user only has 25 ratings, versus a user that has 1000 ratings, the user with 1000 ratings (assuming all other factors are equal, particularly reliabilty of those ratings), carries a lot more weight. If the user with 1000 ratings goes green and the user with 25 ratings goes red, the green rating carries much more weight than the red rating. WOT is a meritocracy. You have to earn the weight your vote gets. That's a big safeguard
And I hardly think that the rating community applies ratings "blithely". If you hang around here for any length of time you will see some of the sophisticated tools raters use to dig deep into DNS, IP, and Email header info, etc., and you will also see that the community is fair and open to changing ratings when warranted. That is something that SA and Norton are much slower at . . . you can post your objections here, as you have done, and if they are specific to certain elements discussed, which you've done partially (you rebutted the BBB info with some statistics, but you failed to answer why, for example, Plimus is blacklisted by several reputable sites, and g7w's comment that "Also, there is that little alert popup - very annoying - asking if you are sure you want to leave the page, sometimes you get two with the second falsely informing you that you are "under attack."), the community will gladly take another look at their ratings. That is something that SA takes up to a year to do .
Please don't take my tone as abrasive, but with the exception of your discussion of BBB stats, most of your reply is non-substantive marketing hype (example: "Know that we are 100% committed to ensuring everybody is protected" . . . a worthy sentiment but neverthless with NO substance).
The community will need something a lot more substantial besides just an analysis of BBB stats and vague marketing claims, in order to use their tools again.
re: Plimus: Hang On A Moment...
Tue 26 May 2009 09:06:28 PM UTC — g7wYou made a long post, I've had a long hard day, so I'll make my reply short.
Plimus's business is theirs (and apparently yours), not mine.
The BBB online report speaks for itself - I just copied some results. Iyt's your busiess to satisify your customers... not mine.
Plimus is currently Green on McAfee SiteAdvisor and Green on Norton SafeWeb.
I use neither of those two; I don't even lurk their ratings to use as reference. Norton, I personally have no idea about, I guess you need Norton installed for it to work and Norton AV is crap aloong with their "tools." Concerning Site Advisor... it can take them up to a year to obtain a proper rating on a site, that makes them a day late and a dollar short with me. So ... I use WOT, it's highly accurate and constantly updated.
According to the WOT Score Card, there is a total of 15 comments, of which 8 are colored red. Yet when I install WOT and head over to Plimus.com I'm warned against it. I don't know what algorithm WOT is using, but the numbers pretty clearly don't add up.
The WOT Scorecard basically has 2 sectiions.
First = ratings: Trustworthiness, Venfor Reliability, Privacy, Child Safety
This is what earns the overall reputation of the site the card is associated to (domain name or IP or both - if IP is dedicated to domain) When a WOT user rates a site, it's like casting a vote in a Democratic election. No one sees who voted for who, and in WOT no one sees who rated or how they rated.
Second = comments.
Consider this opinions, facts (normally referenced), a means to enter a description and the comment does not need to reflect the rating. Example, I find a site that is not malicious, not a scam or spammer, a fairly good site but the content on it is for mature audiences, not children and not in a pornographis sense either, I rate the Child Safety low and I comment with a red Adult Content category - that doesn't mean I rated the entire Site red.
I can rate a site and not leave a comment; in fact that is what most WOT users do.
What we do on these Forums is try to protect other WOT users by bringing up dangerous sites and quickly commenting on them and rateing them so others may be warned ahead of time; ultimately it's up to the visitor as to how they decide to rate a site if they even care to.
A quick note about Plimus.com's rating...
It was red before it was mentioned in this thread, you see a site with as much traffic as you state Plimus gets... 8 or 10 ratings from this Forum would not have much of an impact in changing the color on the card, all we could do is enter comments or reference this thread.
From time to time, we certainly get clients who sell, shall we say, questionable products; we also regularly purge the rolls of folks who have stepped over the edge from dodgy to downright wrong.
This is where WOT differs from McAfee and Norton; they may settle upon "dodgy and questionable products" but the WOT Community does not. ROGUES my friend are ROGUES they are identified, labeled and rated accordingly, you'll see them reverenced on consumer complaint areas such as ripoff.com and complaintsboard,com not to mention the BBB. If I were Plimus, I would look more closely at a clients product line before allowing those products to pass through Plimus's market space. After all, if your not part of the solution, then you're part of the problem and you'll reap the rewards due.
It's nice to see that you and Plimus wish to repair reputation.
May I suggest that you look at each and every domain you hold, their associated IP and clear them from the block/blacklists they are mentioned on. I displayed just 2 in my prior post, I'm sure that if I wanted to take the time to really dig into plimus I could find more. I'll let you do that - it takes a lot of time digging a site as I do using other online sites as my "tools."
Don't take this reply or what I've stated in this thread personally...
I just dig sites and report my findings.
peace,
-------
Against Intuition - gives us safety through Web of Trust.
WOT Community - gives us security through unity.
Thank you all
G7W {G.O.M}
http://g7w.net/
Blithe
Tue 26 May 2009 06:55:31 PM UTC — cod head (not verified)I like that intelligent well thought out reply.I cannot think of a thing to add to it.Lets see what czigh's reply is.A big sigh from me.(G.O.M.with Honours).
Funny.
Tue 26 May 2009 08:20:09 PM UTC — YelloFoxGreen software? Who's idea was that? Everything on that page is obviously fake, even the purchase counter. And price it right, it's 89.90, not 89,90. And if you leave, it gives you that "Are you sure you want to leave" crap that looks just like those free ringtone pop-ups. Tell me if you see something that's not conned.
89,90
Tue 26 May 2009 09:09:38 PM UTC — g7wThis is the Internet.
Different countries use different characters for decimal places with currency.
89,90 is not USA but many others on the Planet use a comma instead of a period.
-------
Against Intuition - gives us safety through Web of Trust.
WOT Community - gives us security through unity.
Thank you all
G7W {G.O.M}
http://g7w.net/
Please...
Sun 01 Nov 2009 05:14:07 AM UTC — YelloFoxStill, the site was conned. Obvious.
financial grouping separators
Sun 01 Nov 2009 07:46:50 PM UTC — g7ware a bit off topic
but as pointed out, many separators are used in financial expressions on a global scale.
Grouping separators should help you understand.
-------
WOT Services Ltd. - gives us safety through Web of Trust.
WOT Community - gives us security through unity.
Thank you all
- G7W