Forum
Comments:
-
- on Wed 23 Sep 2009
- 06:58:03 PM UTC
"I would say that WOT is not
"I would say that WOT is not the tool for that, WOT deals with online presence only."
And why should online presence be any different from how an organisation conducts it's business offline too?
If people are having bad experiences with a company offline, perhaps it is best that WOT users know that in the wot community this website doesn't have a good reputation?
"An adults only website would automatically be considered pron - but is this the right rating in this case?"
I think that an "adult" website can have many reasons for being "adult"- not necessarily hosting pornorgraphic content. I have raised another topic in the forum regarding this point... i.e. would a lottery site (i.e. one that is illegal for minors to participate on under gambling laws) also be rated badly under the child safety category? (becasue as far as I am aware the terms "child safety" and "adult content" were purposefully chosen to imply content that includes (but is also not limited to) pornography. It would be good if there was some sort of granularity on the issue...e.g. into which "red" child safety category does a certain website fall into, so that parents could perhaps block social networking sites whilst allowing gambling sites (just used as an example)
-
- on Wed 23 Sep 2009
- 07:39:21 PM UTC
scam should be rated red
scam should be rated red whether onine or offline...
-
- on Wed 23 Sep 2009
- 08:54:17 PM UTC
Regarding your first point,
Regarding your first point, I quote from the front page: 'WOT warns you before you interact with a risky website.' Enough said.
Regarding the adult thing: I see a big difference between using WOT as a tool for politics / religion by characterizing it as pron or adding the correct tag to a website because it is deals with things that should only be accessible to legal adults.
EDIT: forgot the word 'that' in the last line and gave 'Enough' a capital
-
- on Wed 23 Sep 2009
- 07:39:54 PM UTC
What site?
Would help if you gave the URL of the site. Don't use a live link, just give the domain name, as "example.com".
Also, are you talking about comments instead of ratings? They are very different. Comments ARE NOT ratings.
-
- on Wed 23 Sep 2009
- 08:52:47 PM UTC
I did not want to make it
I did not want to make it about this website. If the general consencus is that offline behavior should be judged like online behavior then do your thing - provided you do it correctly.
The only worry I have is that when enough people hold enough of a grudge against a person or an institution people could tag a website with whatever they want - be it adult content or child unsafe - and therefor stigmatize a website in such a way that it will be hidden from view.
If I remember correctly: When ICANN discussed the implentation of a special TLD for adult content only they did not want to implement it because they were afraid people would be forced to move their website there when expressing a certain outlook on politics or religion - and therefore those websites would be hidden from view.
What is stopping people from using WOT in the same way?
-
- on Wed 23 Sep 2009
- 09:46:28 PM UTC
WOT doesn't prevent anything
At most, WOT simply throws a roadblock in front of the site.
People can choose to ignore the warning message and go ahead with browsing the site.
I don't think we can come to a reasoned understanding of the nature of this discussion without knowing the site in question and the dispute over the business' online and offline practices.
-
- on Thu 24 Sep 2009
- 09:27:15 AM UTC
In the example I gave about
In the example I gave about a non-existing website with political inspired art, there is also a roadblock in front of the site, but when WOT becomes an authority it will in the end mean that the voice of certain people will not be heard - when enough people gather to give a site a bad rating you can make it look like a child unsafe site that tries to gather your data and do all sorts of things.
The idea of WOT is that given enough ratings by enough people you have fair rating of a website. Indeed: a mass of people can function like a gigantic brain - but it can also become mob-justice depending on what is at stake and how well they are organized.
On wikipedia it happens all the time: people editing articles about themselves to make them look better, changing of articles based on political outlook etc. Another example: A while ago there was an application that was often downloaded by people who had a common religious and political view because they wanted to be alerted when certain articles were posted on social bookmarking sites. They then tried to down-vote those articles - in an effort to render them invisible.
In short I am trying to make this a discussion about ethics and personal repsonsibilities. Not about any site in particular.
-
- on Thu 24 Sep 2009
- 10:45:24 AM UTC
Ethics of leaders of the community
Read this thread if you want to get a good handle on the "ethics and personal responsibilities" of leaders of this community.
You're new, aren't you? Welcome to WOT. You'll learn a lot. (Accidental rhyme).
-
- on Fri 25 Sep 2009
- 11:30:25 AM UTC
I'm disapointed
As I started this thread I hoped that someone would give me a link to a place where the points I see are discussed in detail.
I have read the thread you mentioned and found it extremely meager because it does not deal with abuse in whatever form, it does not talk about what it could mean for a site to be the target of religious or political or economic inspired abuse by people who use WOT - which could be possible and has been done before at other sites that use community input.
Since no one here seems to realize that people using WOT could abuse their power to ostracize a website I am probably uninstalling WOT and I wont bother you again with any questions.
-
- on Fri 25 Sep 2009
- 02:11:00 PM UTC
Re: I'm disapointed
Our reputation ratings tell you how much other people trust a website and the rating system was designed to make it as difficult as possible for a single entity to manipulate the reputations by casting a large number of votes even with multiple user accounts (not all ratings are considered equally reliable, read the early blog postings). Every user has one vote and they are allowed to express their opinions in the comments. Of course, if your definition of abuse is people being able to freely share their opinions, then perhaps you'll find a rating system where a single entity defines the official truth more enjoyable.
-
- on Fri 25 Sep 2009
- 03:15:41 PM UTC
Was wanting to say that
But I couldn't find the words. Thanks Sami.
Interestingly, this individual switched from specifying some (unknown . . . and was never revealed) website to a much broader indictment of WOT. That indictment was made WITHOUT fully understanding how WOT works.
"the rating system was designed to make it as difficult as possible"
That's the algorithm I was referring to. Evidently, this person knows what it is and also knows how it works (sarcasm).And something else occurred to me that I should have mentioned right away. In order for a reliable rater to "red" a site that other reliable raters would have "greened", that rater would have to get all the other reliable raters to collude and conspire to rate "red" also, or else the raters reliability would be impacted negatively . . . being detected by the algorithm.
I hardly think everyone would jump on board with what would clearly be a rater attempting to influence others NOT to do an evaluation. This community is full of independent thinkers, not conspiracy addicts.
This was another "conspiracy theory". Not the first time, nor will it be the last.
-
- on Sat 26 Sep 2009
- 08:05:36 AM UTC
I was asking a question nothing more
I already deleted my account, therefor a temporary one, because I am totally flabbergasted.
There was no indictment, I did not see a conspiracy. I just asked how WOT deals with the two hypothetical situations I described in the post that started this thread, and hoped to get a link or a discussion.
But now the last two remarks in this thread make me feel like the locals party because they have tared and feathered the bad guy.
But I am not the bad guy, I simply tried asking how WOT deals with real bad guys, not with roaming strangers like me that pass by and ask 'How do you do things around here, because I heard there are gangs out there.'
And since you did not have an answer to that - you all started talking about other things - I am just saying: good luck, with that, but I don't think this is the right place for me.
I f there is any accusation on my part then it would be that you all have to read peoples posts more carefully before answering especially when accusing someone of conspiracy theories.
Over and out.
-
- on Sat 26 Sep 2009
- 12:21:24 PM UTC
Re: I was asking a question
Your answers for how the system was built to resist manipulation are in the early blog postings. If you have concerns about a particular website's reputation, you'll need to actually mention which website you mean, but I suppose that isn't going to happen anymore.
-
- on Sat 26 Sep 2009
- 05:40:11 PM UTC
re: I was asking a question nothing more
A purely fictitious thread (start topic) should expect fictitious replies, nothing more.
- I noticed a very low WOT score on a site that does not sell online, has clearly no child-unsafe content, does not gather private data through their website but is still rated for not being child safe, bad privacy and vendor unreliability because some people have a problem with how the company operates OUTSIDE of the internet.
- This is an assumption on your part.
How would you know "who" rated this website, "how" they may have rated it, and "why" they rated it. This is a private to the individual rater and is information not shared to anyone else. What makes you think that a person dealing with a business on foot would not take their experiences (positive or negative) and convey them online?But, to be more specific to your hypothetical query.
A website can gaing VERY POOR ratings in all categories for:
- A similar problem arises with the following: could an artists website with art that is political / critical in nature - but not sexual - get a rating of 'adults only'? An adults only website would automatically be considered pron - but is this the right rating in this case?
- Again, another incorrect assumption on your part.
Child Safety, as described when clicking on the Help View while looking at any Scorecard is officially defined as:
Child safety signals the presence of age-inappropriate material or dangerous or illegal activities
Continuing on with the hypothesis of an "artist" - a word that is used extremely loosely now-a-days; anyone can claim to be an "artist;" I am an artist, I paint website ratings...
Music.
We'll select Gangster RAP
Without isolating any one band / group, the idea of promoting: violence, profanity, homophobia, racism, promiscuity, misogyny, rape, street gangs, drive-by shootings, vandalism, thievery, drug dealing, alcohol abuse, substance abuse and materialism, should be considered Adult Related material by any responsible parent and the Child Safety area should be rated very poorly. I for one would not want an impressionable 8-year old walking around spewing quotes...Get the idea?
It is unwise of you to make incorrect assumptions of WOT. You should try to understand WOT more clearly.
-------
WOT Services Ltd. - gives us safety through Web of Trust.
WOT Community - gives us security through unity.
Thank you all
- G7W -
- on Wed 23 Sep 2009
- 10:56:45 PM UTC
offline versus online
Store A has website_A.com
company B has website_B.com
newspaper C has website_C.comstore A is a ripoff, you walk in notice that they are selling pirated versions of Nike shoes.
You go online and notice website_A.com is offering Nike shoes, you use WOT and rate the site Poor for Trustworthiness, Vendor reliability, and Privacy, Child Safety you leave unrated. You have just warned the rest of the WOT Community that this website, like it's physical store, is selling pirated / FAKE Nike shoes.There is no difference between a site and a physical store if that store's website reflects it's "real world" products and services online.
WOT works for both.
-------
Against Intuition - gives us safety through Web of Trust.
WOT Community - gives us security through unity.
Thank you all
- G7W -
- on Wed 23 Sep 2009
- 11:59:16 PM UTC
Unusual
And it would be extremely unusual if brick and mortar store A were to tolerate _A.com's poor reputation. Since _A.com IS the store, my suspicion is that if store A were legitimate it would take down it's web site because the web site would harm the brick and mortar reputation.
The only way the store could be legitimate and the web site not, is if the store wasn't aware of what the web site was doing . . . in which case I would not patronize the store because the store SHOULD know what it's first cousin is doing.
I mean, I can't very well consider a store reliable if it doesn't even know what's going on in its own backyard. How can the store NOT be connected to the web site?
In this age of computer-awareness, I find that unbelievable.
And as far as WOT being manipulated, I think there are algorithms to prevent that.
And as far as WOT raters "ganging up" on a site because of religious or political prejudices, the WOT raters with the most influence are notoriously neutral about religion and politics in their ratings.
-
- on Thu 24 Sep 2009
- 02:37:55 AM UTC
How can the store NOT be connected to the web site
Mr Jones owns "Canadian Pharmacy" - a respected establishment in a small town in Saschatewan, Canada.
Mr Huáng, partnered with Ms. Smirnov, owns several "Canadian Pharmacy" websites Though they have the same name... Mr Jones failed to acquire the stores domain name and has absolutely no connection with it, it's products, or practices.
-------
Against Intuition - gives us safety through Web of Trust.
WOT Community - gives us security through unity.
Thank you all
- G7W -
- on Thu 24 Sep 2009
- 04:54:45 AM UTC
Trademark/copyright violation
If the company has their name tradmarked or copyrighted BEFORE the domain is used, wouldn't that be a trademark/copyright infringement? In fact, I think I've seen something in the news where that exact thing was done against people who try to sell a domain name. The controversy centers around whether or not the domain name was registered BEFORE the copyright/trademark was established.
Granted, a lot of companies don't bother to trademark/copyright their name, but isn't this a good reason to do so?
-
- on Thu 24 Sep 2009
- 10:26:11 PM UTC
if the site tell u they sell
if the site tell u they sell pirated product not the original then its not a scam...
it should be rated red only if they never tell u the truth or they take ur money & run w/o giving u the product or the product is in bad shape... -
- on Thu 24 Sep 2009
- 10:28:43 PM UTC
slap
iStealFromYourCreditCard.com
This website openly states, "We make unauthorized transactions from the credit card informatin you provide to us."So because they say this they are not thieves?
A thief is a thief and a scam is a scam; no matter how "honest" they would like you to believe they are.
-------
Against Intuition - gives us safety through Web of Trust.
WOT Community - gives us security through unity.
Thank you all
- G7W -
- on Thu 24 Sep 2009
- 10:44:36 PM UTC
stealing credit card info
stealing credit card info will screw u so its definitely a scam even if they sell u original product, but piracy that never screw u & save u lot of $ should be consider saved...
-
- on Fri 25 Sep 2009
- 04:55:07 AM UTC
Huh?
Wait a minute . . . wait a minute . . .
Are you saying that pirated software is OK because it saves you money?
First of all, pirated software actually increases the cost of a license (for those of us that buy licensed software), because software manufacturers have to recoup the money lost because certain individuals DON'T pay for licensed software. HONEST people pay a higher price because of the dishonest people (i.e. the software pirates that, by your definition, save money).
We all pay a higher price for computers that have Windows preinstalled because it is licensed, not pirated.
Let me give you an example. I recently had to take an ambulance ride to the local emergency room for medical attention. The ride was no more than 5 miles. I have health insurance, nevertheless the cost of the ambulance ride was $800 dollars plus.
At first I thought this had to be a mistake, so I called the ambulance company. They explained that since they are required by law to transport people that cannot or WILL NOT pay, they have to charge these outrageous rates to cover the cost of these people that don't pay.
Similarly, built in to the cost of software is the money lost by "pirated" software. A software pirate is much like the person that doesn't pay the ER or the ambulance company.
Granted, some people can't afford to purchase medical insurance or pay an ambulance company. But that doesn't excuse software pirates. "I couldn't afford to buy the software, so I pirated it". Give me a break! How about this novel concept . . . if you can't pay for it, then you don't get it. In that regard, the analogy to medical services is flawed. Medical services may be a life-or-death situation. Software isn't.
Secondly, piracy is just flat out dishonest AND ILLEGAL. I don't think WOT would condone software piracy or ILLEGALITY, nor should a WOT rater. Do you disagree with that?
Thirdly, pirated software is frequently a haven for malware and most honest people would not consider pirated software safe ("saved" as I think you put it, or were you referring to "saved" money?) . . . in fact, pirates themselves do not consider pirated software safe. Do you disagree with that?
If pirates don't consider pirated software safe themselves, how is it that pirated software doesn't "screw" an individual?
Why do you think software pirates are trying to figure out ways to defeat "Genuine Advantage" and get Microsoft updates?
For example, Brazil is noted for having a high rate of pirated software (no offense intended to the honest people in Brazil). Interestingly, Brazil also has a higher than normal rate of software infections. Do you think maybe the two circumstances are connected?
I must be misunderstanding your statement. Reading it, I can't believe somebody, especially a WOT rater, would consider pirated AND ILLEGAL software safe.
Unfortunately, your attitude may give yurigoul some reason to question the ethics and personal responsibility of WOT raters.
And, yes, you may take my tone as abrasive.
-
- on Fri 25 Sep 2009
- 08:07:06 PM UTC
Are you saying that pirated
Are you saying that pirated software is OK because it saves you money?
yes, as long as it does not try to cause any harm to me or my pc...Secondly, piracy is just flat out dishonest AND ILLEGAL. I don't think WOT would condone software piracy or ILLEGALITY, nor should a WOT rater. Do you disagree with that?
i won't disagree w that but there r many b/millionares out there who r even more dishonest than the poor & cause the economy downfall & then the poor have to pay tax to cover their ass...Thirdly, pirated software is frequently a haven for malware and most honest people would not consider pirated software safe ("saved" as I think you put it, or were you referring to "saved" money?) . . . in fact, pirates themselves do not consider pirated software safe. Do you disagree with that?
i agree w u but some pirated software site/shop does not contain malware or steal ur personal info or take ur money & run...If pirates don't consider pirated software safe themselves, how is it that pirated software doesn't "screw" an individual?
i'm not saying all pirated software doesn't "screw" an individual, let put it like this, bad pirate should be ashame of themselves for screwing an individual but good pirate (like peterpan) who doesn't "screw" an individual unless ur a bad guy of course, in short, u can't blame the good pirates for what the bad pirates did...Why do you think software pirates are trying to figure out ways to defeat "Genuine Advantage" and get Microsoft updates?
For example, Brazil is noted for having a high rate of pirated software (no offense intended to the honest people in Brazil). Interestingly, Brazil also has a higher than normal rate of software infections. Do you think maybe the two circumstances are connected?
yes, but thats because maybe too many people "anyhow" buy from scam pirated shop or "anyhow" download from scam pirated site/user & get themself screwed, u can't blame the good pirated shop/site/user for that... -
- on Sat 26 Sep 2009
- 10:29:16 AM UTC
New thread
Am starting a new thread titled "Pirated Software" since we've gotten wayyyyy off topic here.
-
- on Thu 24 Sep 2009
- 09:03:53 AM UTC
WOT Community - gives us security through unity?
WOT Community - gives us security through unity Could you clarify that?
-
- on Sat 26 Sep 2009
- 01:24:43 AM UTC
re: my sig
- Against Intuition - gives us safety through Web of Trust.
- This I need to change since the Company is now officially known as WOT Services Ltd.. In any case, this is reference to the folks who created the add-on Web of Trust
- WOT Community - gives us security through unity.
- Ever heard of safety in
numbers?
The WOT Community rates websites.
The more WOT users rate a site High or Poor the more value the ratings are for that site and whether or not that site is deemed safe.
Therefore the security of WOT is based upon the unity (like ratings) of it's user-base.
The power of WOT
I registered here because I noticed a very low WOT score on a site that does not sell online, has clearly no child-unsafe content, does not gather private data through their website but is still rated for not being child safe, bad privacy and vendor unreliability because some people have a problem with how the company operates OUTSIDE of the internet.
I would say that WOT is not the tool for that, WOT deals with online presence only.
A similar problem arises with the following: could an artists website with art that is political / critical in nature - but not sexual - get a rating of 'adults only'? An adults only website would automatically be considered pron - but is this the right rating in this case? There is a chance that a number of those sites will get that rating - for what ever reason, be it political or religious or for simply holding a grudge against a person.
I would say that WOT is not the tool for that, WOT is not political or religious.
Any takers?