Forum
Comments:
-
- on Fri 20 Nov 2009
- 08:26:56 PM UTC
Re: Is WOT Accurate
It tells you how much other people trust your site. Whether the reputation is an accurate reflection of the majority opinion or not usually depends on how many people have rated the site. In your site's case, there aren't that many ratings, so the reputation will probably quickly improve when more people review the site.
Of course, it's also possible for otherwise trustworthy website's reputation to go down if the site has been compromised and hosts malicious content without the owner's knowledge. Are you aware of any security incidents with the site in the past months?
-
- on Fri 20 Nov 2009
- 08:55:10 PM UTC
Thanks for the reply
Thanks for the reply Sami.
Site is clean at the moment. Nothing is every truly secure, but we try to keep up with it and run checks often.
Think I just needed to vent. ~smiles~
Heidi-AnnRecognized by the Carnegie Institute of Science. Washington D.C.
-
- on Fri 20 Nov 2009
- 09:15:17 PM UTC
You are not supposed to rate
You are not supposed to rate your own site btw.
No you cant necessarily trust WOT more than you will trust other random people on the internet. It is not a virus scanner. Think pixel lamps as hints, suggestions. Gets new meaning when your site is topic ;) Does not change this though. Who are those people that vote, what are their motives, do they have any idea what they are doing? Nobody knows. Not just a question of how many.
If your site had been compromised it could get red fast for good reasons. Then I would think that 1. You become informed of problems and 2. Ratings are redone once site is clean again. Or in other words much can go wrong ;)
I have seen another clean site getting all red for strange reasons. Or not. A commenter linked to Mcafee Siteadvisor where it was falsely red already. Some people seeing that, and not bothering to think/research themselves, might just go click, click.
-
- on Fri 20 Nov 2009
- 09:31:25 PM UTC
Huh?
"You are not supposed to rate your own site btw"
Where is that written? Granted, an owner rating their own site can be suspicious (though a rater's ratings are "unknown" to all but WOT staff, and I'm not even sure if they know), but if an owner wants to do that, I'm not aware of any prohibition.
Any WOT user can give a rating to any site as far as I know.
-
- on Fri 20 Nov 2009
- 09:53:17 PM UTC
I think
I think the point is that the websites owner shouldn't pose as a 'satisfied customer' and praise his/her own site in disguise. But describing what the site is about, and selecting an appropriate category - that should not be a problem, only information.
-
- on Fri 20 Nov 2009
- 09:40:00 PM UTC
Opps
Did not know.... Sorry WOT and all
I think the individual that said he had a bad experience was bored and never been to Scientific Frontline
Well Gents and ladies, thanks for the input, now it is time to get beautified (sleep)
Not asking anyone to comment on site, but do hope you take a moment to visit, and feel free to ask for information.P.S. Kind of glad about the bad comment, or I might not have taken the time to learn more about WOT. See every cloud does have a silver lining. (gee sticks finger in mouth. ~smles~)
Heidi-AnnRecognized by the Carnegie Institute of Science. Washington D.C.
-
- on Fri 20 Nov 2009
- 09:56:26 PM UTC
Re: You are not supposed to rate
You are not supposed to rate your own site btw.
Site owners certainly are allowed to rate their own site. It's not like it would be possible to stop them, and they are entitled to their opinion just as much as anyone else.
more than you will trust other random people on the internet
You could say the same about Wikipedia, but it's still surprisingly accurate. In our case, the confidence indicator (the small human figures) is usually a pretty good indication of how much the reputation can be trusted. It takes into account not only the number of ratings, but also the estimated reliability of users who rated the site and how conflicting the ratings are, for example.
Who are those people that vote, what are their motives, do they have any idea what they are doing? Nobody knows.
Sounds familiar. Our rating system does a pretty good job of eliminating as much bias as possible from the reputations, but comments should obviously be taken with a grain of salt, even when there are lots of them.
-
- on Fri 20 Nov 2009
- 09:33:28 PM UTC
re: sflorg.com
First of all, welcome to WOT Forum.
WOT is a meritocracy; WOT members rates the sites. Member ratings vary to a degree, not all members have equal say in ratings; that is.. not all "votes" that are cast hold the same "value" - WOT must learn to trust the members and as that trust is increased, so is their "value" in ratings. WOT uses trusted sources as well, these are various blacklists and databases that associate known "bad" sites with: PHISHing, Malware, Spam, etc. That is the general gist of it all.
Concerning sflorg.com
The whois displays accurate contact information; no "hiding" behind a private registration service. The website offers an adequate ToS - though lacking in a Privacy Policy, which in my opinion it should have one - here is a link to offer help if you need it.Nice site! You get an excellent green rating from me.
-------
WOT Services Ltd. - gives us safety through Web of Trust.
WOT Community - gives us security through unity.
Thank you all
- G7W -
- on Sun 22 Nov 2009
- 02:55:42 PM UTC
Privacy Policy
Dear g7w,
First let me thank you for the time you took to look over the site and give a positive review.
You mentioned privacy policy, and I did look hard at the link you provide. Though it looks more for one that provides a commercial service, I still see its importance for not-for-profit sites So one more bit of advice if do not mind. Do you think such should be a separate page, or could it be incorporated on a legal/disclaimer page.
Heidi-AnnRecognized by the Carnegie Institute of Science. Washington D.C.
-
- on Sun 22 Nov 2009
- 03:10:38 PM UTC
re: privacy policy
There are many sources on the Net that discuss the how's and why's for a privacy policy, the link I offered has a generator to make it quick and simple; one could always tweak the results for a more "personal touch."
People like to see a privacy policy link in the page footer, normally sitting next to a ToS link, etc.
Whether it is a physical separate page or incorporated into a more generic "legal disclaimer" is your choice. Whatever is best for your site, it's design, and ease of editing should changes occur. Many sites I come across have the "single page" style with each section offering a textual menu at the head of the page and anchored section links to separate the content; hence "Privacy Policy" on the index footer could link to the section immediately, i.e.,
<a href="example.com/legal/disclaimer.html#privacy">Privacy Policy</a>
-------
WOT Services Ltd. - gives us safety through Web of Trust.
WOT Community - gives us security through unity.
Thank you all
- G7W -
- on Fri 20 Nov 2009
- 09:39:49 PM UTC
I would say it is common
I would say it is common sense not to rate own stuff Bobjam. As a little step in giving system some credibility outside the known lists which are used. I dont know if there are rules about it.
-
- on Fri 20 Nov 2009
- 09:52:14 PM UTC
Confused
Do you mean "rate" or "comment"?
If an owner has a credible rebuttal to a comment, then IMO they should comment. Would you expect them to remain silent under those circumstances just because someone said they're "not supposed" to do it?
-
- on Fri 20 Nov 2009
- 09:52:31 PM UTC
not to rate own stuff
There is nothing wrong in rating your own website(s).
You bought the domain(s), you coded the page(s), you worked hard on it, you're proud of it...
You have every right to express your own opinions of it and I would hope that you give it a 100 in all categories with the possible exclusion of Child Safety IF it's content is for mature audiences.Remember ratings are not comments, unless the rater offers a comment how would you know if they rated it or not? I not only encourage rating your own site, but I encourage that you leave a comment as well (better than hiding in the shadows).
-------
WOT Services Ltd. - gives us safety through Web of Trust.
WOT Community - gives us security through unity.
Thank you all
- G7W -
- on Fri 20 Nov 2009
- 09:59:50 PM UTC
Well the rules are the
Well the rules are the opposite of my logic. I thought those who ask for ratings were semi-spammers. In fact they are following WOTs suggestions. Which also includes ratings and comments. Let us hope it is not a ticket to a circus show.
-
- on Fri 20 Nov 2009
- 10:08:32 PM UTC
Re: Well the rules are the
I thought those who ask for ratings were semi-spammers
There's a whole section on the forum called "Comments on websites" where anyone can ask others to review a site. It's up to you to decide if or how you rate the sites. I'm not sure how that would lead to "a circus show", but perhaps you can tell us?
-
- on Fri 20 Nov 2009
- 10:16:37 PM UTC
"those who ask for ratings"...
Those who ask for ratings can be spammers, semi-spammers.
Or they may be people wondering about a false red rating.
Or they are simply inviting: look at our brand new site!Surely this forum should be the last place
to visit if you're a spammer... ;-) -
- on Fri 20 Nov 2009
- 10:10:03 PM UTC
Clarify
"Well the rules are the opposite of my logic"
What "rules" are you talking about? A link would help."I thought those who ask for ratings were semi-spammers"
What logic leads you to believe that? Some are (what's a "semi-spammer" anyway?), and some aren't. Actually, most are legit. And the bad ones are usually discovered pretty quickly. I would imagine the word's gotten around that if you operate a bad site, don't go to the WOT forum and ask for a rating. That's pretty much like shooting yourself in the foot. -
- on Fri 20 Nov 2009
- 10:21:34 PM UTC
No but this is over in
No but this is over in marketing/promoting department - or whatever you will call it. Wot also use green lamps. I dont see why WOT needs to help with that at all. Like if you are aware/eager enough here is a shortcut to get green faster. Silly. Reds are different of course.
Any site admin, good or bad, will of course rate own stuff green, rating is useless.
Rules are more like FAQ but that is also site policy, see under support.
-
- on Fri 20 Nov 2009
- 10:36:00 PM UTC
Re: No but this is over in
here is a shortcut to get green faster
It's not a shortcut to a good reputation necessarily, but to a reputation the site deserves. There's nothing wrong with asking other people to review your site, whether you do it on your own website or on a forum. In fact, some might find websites that welcome reviews to be more trustworthy than those who either don't care about user feedback or are even hostile towards criticism.
-
- on Fri 20 Nov 2009
- 10:23:59 PM UTC
Is WOT accurate?
No it is not. I have a personal website here http://www.petergh.f2s.com/
Astonishingly I am marked down on 'Vendor reliability', yet I have never sold anything on the Internet, not even on Ebay let alone my website. It is a totally non-commercial website and NOTHING is for sale. I am also marked down on Privacy, yet no-one can send me any private details, it is a read-only website. Lastly I am marked down on Child Safety, but there is absolutely no adult content whatsoever. -
- on Fri 20 Nov 2009
- 10:42:00 PM UTC
Re: Reputation inheritance
As I've tried to explain to you on your board, your website is a subdomain of a shared parent domain whose reputation isn't very good. Until enough people rate your subdomain, it inherits the parent domain's reputation, which also happens to be affected by the combined reputation of every other subdomain it has. Like just about all shared hosting services out there, this domain appears to have had its share of abuse by scammers of all sorts, which explains why new subdomains aren't considered very trustworthy initially. However, once your subdomain has enough ratings, the parent domain's reputation no longer affects it. If this isn't acceptable, you can completely disassociate yourself from the poorly rated parent domain by setting up your own domain and hosting your site there.
-
- on Sun 22 Nov 2009
- 02:47:49 PM UTC
Dedicated IP
That is why it is so important to have a dedicated IP. When a reputation is really import for either sales or networking. Spend the extra.
Heidi-AnnRecognized by the Carnegie Institute of Science. Washington D.C.
-
- on Thu 26 Nov 2009
- 10:38:52 PM UTC
Privacy Policy
Ok got the Privacy Policy done. Before I continue to link in site, would you all mind looking and let me know if it looks ok.
http://www.sflorg.com/privacy_policy.htmlRecognized by the Carnegie Institute of Science. Washington D.C.
-
- on Thu 26 Nov 2009
- 11:56:46 PM UTC
re: Privacy Policy
Looks good.
However, one small bit confuses me:
- Surveys
- We never share information from surveys with third parties.
- What we provide to third parties
- Except as noted above for surveys, Scientific Frontline does not provide any third party access to your IP address and e-mail address.
Both appear not to share PII with 3rd parties...
Why the exclusion for surveys in the "What we provide.." section?-------
WOT Services Ltd. - gives us safety through Web of Trust.
WOT Community - gives us security through unity.
Thank you all
- G7W -
- on Fri 27 Nov 2009
- 12:04:06 AM UTC
Errr. That and ten typo's.
Errr.
That and ten typo's. Well eagle eye. Because I write faster then I think, and can be dangerous. huh. Ok I need to rethink since we might share surveys with sponsors
off to fix...Recognized by the Carnegie Institute of Science. Washington D.C.
-
- on Fri 27 Nov 2009
- 12:14:57 AM UTC
email
Why would I have to offer you an email address (log in?) to complete a 3rd party survey (I'd really like to see a list of links - not too many survey sites that "pop up" are trustful)
OR
Why would a 3rd party survey site require you to offer my email address?IP's are different, they are recorded by *every* server you visit, how the IP is used depends upon each individual site, so a simple disclaimer suffices.
-------
WOT Services Ltd. - gives us safety through Web of Trust.
WOT Community - gives us security through unity.
Thank you all
- G7W -
- on Fri 27 Nov 2009
- 12:20:28 AM UTC
Surveys will never be third
Surveys will never be third party. Will always be done here.
Only time a e-mail is required is to verify for posting to upcoming forum and the "Stellar Nights Gallery"
I made some corrections already. Thanks for the help. I'll give it another look overRecognized by the Carnegie Institute of Science. Washington D.C.
Is WOT Accurate
I have to say I love the idea of WOT... yet when I looked at our site ratings I was stunned to say the least. 5 years of dedication and then this.
0 Privacy?
14 areas under an SSL!
We go as far as to put all gallery logins under a SSL, and our upcoming forum is already under one too.
Bad customer relations!
We are a not for profit news agency that does not advertise. We had Google ads two years ago, but even that would not have been our issue.
We are recognized by the Carnegie institute of Science in Washington D.C.
http://www.ciw.edu/related_links
I did stop updating for about three months due to the fact I am terminal and needed some time to ponder life. We are back with a vengeance till my last breath. Seeing what was reported I have to say saddened my efforts to educate.
Sincerely,
Heidi-Ann Kennedy
Director
Scientific Frontline
http://www.sflorg.com