Comments on websites
Undeserved bad reputation for Constant Contact?
ven 12 ott 2007 00:31:27 UTC da PikadudeNo1Something seems wrong to me about WOT's data for Constant Contact ("Do-It-Yourself Email Marketing"). Despite the "Spam Free Zone" image at the bottom of every page on their website, and a page about their anti-spam policies, they've gotten a really low reputation for privacy in WOT. Not all e-mail marketing is spam...
I'm subscribed to one of their customer's newsletters. I've never received more than a few pieces of junk mail per day in my inbox. I'm quite certain my spam problem would be much worse if their anti-spam stuff was all just a cover-up and they were regularly selling my e-mail address. I've done my part to help restore their repuation, but I'm wondering if any of this forum's posters has concrete evidence that I'm wrong? If there's no good evidence, a few more positive testimonies should be submitted.
And no, I am not an employee/partner/etc. of Constant Contact. My only relationship with them is the aforementioned newsletter subscription.
- Login o registrati per inviare commenti
re:Undeserved bad reputation for Constant Contact?
ven 12 ott 2007 07:44:03 UTC da SamiI don't personally read every spam I receive to determine the source, but I'd say it's pretty safe to say that Constant Contact have done their share of email abuse in the past, which is probably the reason for their less than stellar reputation:
http://tinyurl.com/ytahss
RIDICULOUS
lun 11 feb 2008 00:42:13 UTC da cpedleyThe ONLY STUFF I GET FROM CONSTANT CONTACT is FROM highly reputable companies! I have NEVER RECEIVED JUNK MAIL OR SPAM FROM THEM.
I found my own site below www.church-software-stoe.com rated yellow in the first 3 areas. It is then that I KNEW THERE IS SOMETHING VERY WRONG WITH THE USER RATED SYSTEM.
I went to Phishtank and put in my store name and they said, "Nothing in the Tank"
So that means THE POOR RATING CAME FROM USERS!
So now I have been illegally branded as untrustworthy, unreliable, and not keeping privacy WHICH IS THE VERY OPPOSITE TO THE TRUTH. SO I KNOW THAT THESE "ALGORITHMS" ARE NOT WELL DONE.
ALSO THE FACT THAT YOU CANNOT SEE WHY IT WAS RATED THAT WAY OR BY WHO MEANS YOU ARE BEING ACCUSED ANONYMOUSLY AND UNJUSTLY.
I have totally changed my support of WOT and am waiting for an answer from the developers before I take further action to correct this GROSS INDECENCY!
Charles G. Pedley BA MSED
905-228-2161
www.church-software-store.com
www.churchprojectors.com
www.cpedley.com
www.schoolgenius.com
www.joyfulmourning.com
Re: RIDICULOUS
lun 11 feb 2008 06:18:02 UTC da SamiYes, the unsatisfactory rating came from our users. However, we're not going to start feeding people opinions here and we won't censor their ratings just to please the more vocal members. If you disagree with a rating, I recommend you give your own and ask your users to do the same. Yelling at us won't help.
It's their clients
mar 11 dic 2007 16:31:25 UTC da phyzomeConstant Contact seems to be a bulk email service. I'm guessing that most of their clients are responsible (only sending to opted-in customers), but some are more spammish.
So... perhaps Constant Contact deserves a relatively good rating, but people can't tell the difference between the client and the service provider?
ONLY RECEIVED INFO FROM HIGHLY-RESPECTED BUSINESSES
lun 11 feb 2008 00:44:14 UTC da cpedleyCharles G. Pedley BA MSED
905-228-2161
www.church-software-store.com
www.churchprojectors.com
www.cpedley.com
www.schoolgenius.com
www.joyfulmourning.com
Spamming
lun 18 feb 2008 13:50:42 UTC da phyzomeSee, now you're just spamming. First you yell, and now you're throwing commercial links at us.
You're not going to get respect that way.
(Edit: By "us", I mean other users. I'm not with WOT.)
WOT is an open community
lun 11 feb 2008 09:22:33 UTC da Esa S.WOT follows the nature of the Internet: it is open and no one alone owns the final truth in judging what is good and what is not. Charles you will do a favor for yourself and the organizations you support by getting more people in your own network to join Web of Trust and to share their knowledge with the WOT community.
Ridiculous, what?
lun 18 feb 2008 04:04:47 UTC da wehaveitallWhat are you talking about it's ridiculous.. Just by looking briefly at the first link, there are many reasons to believe your site would have dangers and why people would rate it yellow:
Some of your ads are dangerous
The site looks almost like a bunch of ads and downloads combined into a jumbled mess. I don't even know if some of the things are ads or not.
The page almost didn't load, which often leads users to believe it is not a reliable site.
The site has the typical look of an unreliable site:
All downloads
The same picture on every page. Virus sites often do this to save time and make a quick virus site instead of different pictures on each.
Everything is jumbled together and it's difficult to find what you're looking for or even figure out the IDEA of the website
The website has lots of ads and things looking like ads
___________________________________________________________
You're living in your own little world if you think there's no POSSIBLE reason to believe in any way that your site could pose a slight threat. That's what yellow means, be cautious. It may not be dangerous, but people have reason to believe that, and so yellow is a just rating. I saw that the rating changed. I think this shouldn't have been done. That was a bad job on the users part to reward Charles and do what he wanted when he simply yelled at you. If you honestly thought a site whether it's yours or not has an unjust rating, either report it to wot through the links on the sidebar on the about us page (without yelling), or post on the forums nicely and say why you honestly think the site is or isn't safe.
I submitted my rating in attempt to put the ratings back where they were before you posted this. I'm sorry, but based on viewing your websites and based on the rude, unprofessional and flat out retarded way you acted, that leads me to no conclusion that your site is in any way safe.
Feel free to comment on this.
My guess
lun 18 feb 2008 13:52:55 UTC da phyzomeMy guess is that Charles asked people he knows to download the extension and provide positive ratings for his site.
And that's fine by me! WOT's algorithm should be capable of handling supgroups with differing opinions.
I rated his websites...
lun 18 feb 2008 22:10:22 UTC da Yatti420People still still receive alot of spam from constant contact... They have multiple domains... All with alot of low ratings...
To CPEDLEY:
Not the best looking designs out there.... Its so oldschool, adblockers don't even get rid of those banners... SchoolGenius I saw a link to trial software?? (Could this be spyware?)
Overall most of those sites get yellow > green overall and a light red(schoolgenius) for privacy here and there..Good child ratings..
Poor design affected my ratings the most..
- Banners
- Links
- Spyware?
- Did I see frames?
Mostly my issues with the sites..
Peace
---------
Jared Gray