General discussion
WOT & Stumbleupon
Fri 23 Oct 2009 06:01:41 PM UTC — HiqutipieStumbleupon is the most popular rating community on the net...It would seem that WOT & Stumbleupon overlap each other and yet do the same work indirectly...Is it possible for WOT & Stumbleupon to work together...It does seem like a reasonable & likely relationship that could work for both parties for the good of all...
Re: WOT & Stumbleupon
Fri 23 Oct 2009 07:02:00 PM UTC — SamiStumbleUpon lets you find entertaining websites while our service tells you the reputation of the sites you visit. We are about safety and trustworthiness while they are about entertainment. There's not much overlap in my opinion.
Echo
Fri 23 Oct 2009 10:12:37 PM UTC — BobJamAgreed and well put.
No not at all
Fri 23 Oct 2009 11:17:16 PM UTC — HiqutipieNo not at all Sami...Stumbleupon is not an entertainment medium...Its an exploration of all websites of all context & content and the evaluation of such by discerning users like yourself...Hence the overlap with WOT...They are doing the same thing you are doing just calling it something else...
Safety or Security?
Fri 23 Oct 2009 11:57:30 PM UTC — BobJamI don't see anything in here about "Safety" or "Security":
So how would you rate a site on safety?
wot should work with more AV
Sat 24 Oct 2009 12:12:51 AM UTC — demonluowot should work with more AV instead of only panda...
Which one
Sat 24 Oct 2009 01:51:55 AM UTC — BobJamWhat is the AV program that WOT doesn't work with? Or did you mean "partner" with?
And I'm confused. Stumbleupon has nothing to do with AV programs, is not an AV program itself . . . so what's the connection between Stumbleupon and AV programs?
What does this have to do with Stumbleupon NOT rating sites for safety (or, as Hiqutipie claims, rating sites for safety)?
re: wot should work with more AV instead of only panda
Sat 24 Oct 2009 10:36:07 AM UTC — g7wOfftopic agreed.
However, I think the meaning was "work with" to equal "partner with" and not if WOT interfered with your local installed AV of choice.
-------
WOT Services Ltd. - gives us safety through Web of Trust.
WOT Community - gives us security through unity.
Thank you all
- G7W
i mean "partner with"...
Sun 25 Oct 2009 12:10:56 PM UTC — demonluoi mean "partner with"...
StumbleUpon ratings
Sat 24 Oct 2009 10:54:16 AM UTC — g7wWeb pages are presented when the user clicks the "Stumble!" button on the browser's toolbar. StumbleUpon chooses which Web page to display based on the user's ratings of previous pages, ratings by his/her friends, and by the ratings of users with similar interests.
StumbleUpon ratings are merely a thumbs up or thumbs down - like the old movie critics Siskel and Ebert
WOT's rating system is more complex and is security related meritocracy
-------
WOT Services Ltd. - gives us safety through Web of Trust.
WOT Community - gives us security through unity.
Thank you all
- G7W
sites are being Rated on
Sat 24 Oct 2009 01:51:21 PM UTC — Hiqutipiesites are being Rated on SU...You can just as easy translate that into safety & trustworthiness...People are not rating unsafe sites and most often catch the Spammers and Flag them...
Sorry to intrude here, but I
Sat 24 Oct 2009 02:19:38 PM UTC — Destinii HaruyaSorry to intrude here, but I don't see the overlap at all. You can't translate how much somebody likes the site into the safety of the site.
Echo
Sat 24 Oct 2009 07:28:14 PM UTC — BobJamJust "liking" the site does NOT translate to safety. I mean, people can easily "like" an unsafe site. I can give you some examples if you want.
"People are not rating unsafe sites"
Then by that logic does it mean that if a site is not rated in SU, it's unsafe?
WOT Ratings
Sat 24 Oct 2009 07:46:43 PM UTC — g7wWe use WOT as a security tool but we must remember that it is a reputation tool.
Not all safe sites security-wise will be green in WOT, but hopefully all unsafe sites will be red.
Example:
example_siteA.com is unrated.
G7W reviews it, finds no malicious content directly on the site or through off-site links. It does not send out spam, nor is it a PHISH. There is no content suggestive of being hateful, or violent, or sexual in nature requiring an adult rating so G7W rates it green for security purposes.
Destinii Haruya visits the site. Finds it interesting, Notices there is a store, makes a purchase. Has no problem with financial transactions, so the site respects and does not try to abuse PII. BUT it took 5 weeks for the delivery of the product instead of the 5-10 business days as advertised. Also, the product that was shipped did not look like the same item as described on the website. Destinii's really pissed off and tries to reconcile the situation but the site owner is unwilling to exchange or make a refund, so Destinii rates it red for Customer Experience. Who's "right?" They both are. One rated as a security researcher and the other rated as a consumer.
StumbleUpon could not possibly translate this because it would have both a thumbs up AND a thumbs down. WOT would translate this to non-green, non-red, more like a yellow/orange where the WOT user should review both comments before proceeding. Conversely, WOT could not make a reliable translation of a StumbleUpon rating since those ratings are generic and are mainly for entertainment purposes; StumbleUpon is a social networking bookmark system — I have no thumbs...
-------
WOT Services Ltd. - gives us safety through Web of Trust.
WOT Community - gives us security through unity.
Thank you all
- G7W
'Nuf said
Sat 24 Oct 2009 08:44:18 PM UTC — BobJamThat should do it.
well said...
Sun 25 Oct 2009 12:13:40 PM UTC — demonluowell said...
Perfect!
Tue 27 Oct 2009 01:58:45 PM UTC — edilsoncaldasPerfeito, é isso ai!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WOT Community - Por uma internet mais segura!
Rated?
Sun 25 Oct 2009 10:46:44 PM UTC — evilfantasyDepends in what context you put it in to. Stumblers "Thumbs Up" or Thumbs Down" a website and can comment on it or add it to their StumbleUpon blog. There is nothing in place as a safety precaution when Stumbling other than adding an "Adult Content" label.
WOT is about rating websites for safety, adult content, malicious content, spam and more.... It's a safety tool, not a time killer or advertising tool as StumbleUpon is.
When you Stumble a site it goes into a "queue" for other Stumblers to discover. WOT doesn't do that.
I've used both extensively.
WOT = Safety tool
StumbleUpon = Entertainment/Advertising tool
Perhaps better integration
Mon 26 Oct 2009 05:09:21 PM UTC — amishrabbitWhen you view a page that you get to through the StumbleUpon website, you view it as a frame, with a StumbleUpon "toolbar" along the upper part of the browser window.
I'd actually find it useful to see the WOT rating for the framed site. As it stands, the WOT plugin for Firefox does not deliver the correct rating for the "framed" site but always delivers the rating for stumbleupon.com, which is neither useful nor protective.
eg., http://www.stumbleupon.com/s/#2MLwzK/www.ptable.co...
Should derive ratings details from here: http://www.mywot.com/en/scorecard/ptable.com
Forget partnerships, or even letting StumbleUpon users ratings for websites tie in with WOT data. I'd like to see the WOT plugin deliver the rating for the "correct" site that I'm viewing in StumbleUpon. It may require some sort of exception rule be added to the plugin. Right now, as far as I'm concerned, WOT doesn't work in the context of StumbleUpon.
I would like to see that as
Mon 26 Oct 2009 06:16:04 PM UTC — cconniejeanI would like to see that as well. Some of the sites I visit show you sites in , I actually never see the WOT rating unless I click on open in a new window. That's a good idea amishrabbit.
.....
Mon 26 Oct 2009 05:12:32 PM UTC — MysteryFCMSU keep bleedin spamming me :o(
Regards
Steven Burn
Ur I.T. Mate Group / hpHosts
it-mate.co.uk / hosts-file.net
As I'm sure you know
Mon 26 Oct 2009 08:15:06 PM UTC — BobJamWouldn't that be an excellent time to use (when you register) a spamavert-type email address? Though I'm not familiar with SU, so maybe it won't work with that type of thing.
....
Mon 26 Oct 2009 09:25:36 PM UTC — MysteryFCMIf I'd reg'd for them to begin with, then yes ;o)
Regards
Steven Burn
Ur I.T. Mate Group / hpHosts
it-mate.co.uk / hosts-file.net
Bot?
Mon 26 Oct 2009 10:01:45 PM UTC — BobJamSo have they got some kind of a bot? That's the only way I can think of that they've "stumbled upon" (pun intended) your email address since you didn't give it to them.
not an option
Mon 26 Oct 2009 11:45:40 PM UTC — g7wWOT doesn't work with SU because SU is not in the:
WOT->Settings->Searching [Select when ratings are shown: ] select box.
Would be nice if it were an option though.
-------
WOT Services Ltd. - gives us safety through Web of Trust.
WOT Community - gives us security through unity.
Thank you all
- G7W
Reply to?
Mon 26 Oct 2009 11:57:10 PM UTC — BobJamIs this a reply to amishrabbit's post?
yeah...
Tue 27 Oct 2009 12:05:48 AM UTC — g7wHow'd it get here?
LOL
I clicked "reply" under his post.
-------
WOT Services Ltd. - gives us safety through Web of Trust.
WOT Community - gives us security through unity.
Thank you all
- G7W
Popularity vs Security
Wed 28 Oct 2009 02:21:52 PM UTC — phantazmWOT and SU are both rating systems, but not identical.
Popularity isn't the same as security.
Consider these examples:
A site may be very popular, but not not safe.
A site may be very secure, yet not popular...
Another issue is complexity; a simple rating (up/down) isn't always sufficient.
Example: an adult site may be totally unsafe for children, yet completely safe for adults.
A simple thumbs up/down system just isn't enough to include
both a warning and a recommendation...
So, I don't think WOT should use data from SU.
But SU could still use WOT data...
Different ways
Wed 28 Oct 2009 06:23:19 PM UTC — BobJamphantazm and I are saying the same thing, only in different ways:
phantazm: "A site may be very popular, but not not safe.
A site may be very secure, yet not popular"
me: "people can easily "like" an unsafe site"
Others have said essentially the same too, and in fact I think that's the consensus. End of argument? (Not an abrasive tone there.)
"End of argument?"
Wed 28 Oct 2009 06:39:43 PM UTC — evilfantasySince the OP hasn't responded in a while and we are all agreeing with one another now then yes. I would say so.
OP..?
Fri 30 Oct 2009 05:06:06 PM UTC — phantazmAnother acronym I don't know...