Comments on websites
The Tile Association - Reputable Organisation rated DANGEROUS. Why?
vie 28 mar 2008 15:34:16 UTC — davemab22The Tile Association. www.tiles.org.uk
Rated RED Vendor Reliablity (how this DANGEROUS rating is arrived at I do not know)
Rated YELLOW Child Safety (goodness me, would a child even want to look by this technical site).
I find it absolutely amazing that this organisation has been rated by the WOT community as dangerous let alone even have a child safety rating. I can find nothing whatsoever that would give the slightest indication of any impropriety.
It is not on any SBL PBL or XBL spam block list.
It is a British organisation with a UK published address and telephone, fax and email contact displayed.
It was formed in the year 2000 to represent the whole of the UK wall and floor tile Industry under one organisation.
It has no sign up forms other than a very comprehensive form to be filled in to become a business member.
It has links to green sites.
It has been tested by McAfee free from spyware, adware etc.
Netcraft also rates it green.
I am not connected to The Tiling Association, I am just amazed that this site has been rated so unfairly. I am sure that the Chairman David Forbes would be interested to learn how the WOT community has rated his organisation!
I will give the community a chance to put its own view on this site before I give my own rating. There should be an overseeing group within WOT that looks at sites like this which on the face of it appear to be completely in the clear.
I look forward to the new version of WOT where we can see the bad (or good) comments made against ratings.
- Inicie sesión o regístrese para enviar comentarios
Re: The Tile Association
vie 28 mar 2008 16:11:00 UTC — SamiUmm, I visited the URL and it's green in all components?
Anyway, if you disagree with a rating in future, you should always rate the site yourself. I mean, you are the "overseeing group," use your vote!
I wouldn't rate a site for
sáb 29 mar 2008 15:50:26 UTC — RobI wouldn't rate a site for vendor reliability unless I bought something from the site because that would just defeat the point in having it, although I must admit, I wouldn't trust that site from just looking at it.
I guess as some point someone was unsatisfied with the service so they rated it red for everything. If you look at the number of ratings, you can see that it doesn't have a huge number of ratings so any vote it did get would have quite a big influence on the overall ratings.
How the rating may have formed
dom 30 mar 2008 02:33:59 UTC — wehaveitallThe site is now green, most likely from a rating provided by you or other users after seeing the topic posted. Here's a note however for why wot may have shown it unsafe.
Vendor Reliability
If it's vendor reliability that's red, it's not that unlikely. Mcafee site advisor scans the site for viruses. It doesn't tell you how reliable a site may be, or if it's a scam. Although a phone number usually means it's less likely for a site to be fraudulent, it doesn't guarantee it.
Child safety
As for child safety, just because a child is unlikely to visit doesn't mean the rating shouldn't be placed. Although it does in this case seem fairly child-friendly, keep in mind yellow only means be cautious; it doesn't mean that it's necessarily dangerous. In fact, Bullguard.com was yellow at one point and it's a reputable virus scanner. The child safety rating could have been from a mistake, or because it isn't the best built site, and looks like it wasn't built by someone with much experience. someone may have thought or noticed something on it that looked a bit unsafe for children.
Another note on yellow in the future:
Some people download several programs around the same time and soon after find that they have a virus or viruses. That's partly how yellow forms. People aren't sure if that's the site that gave them the virus or not, so they rate it yellow, telling you to be cautious.