General discussion
Can stupid people make comments too?
dom 17 ago 2008 03:22:29 UTC da kieranmullenGood subject eh? Catches your attention?
I have a few servers that I maintain and so I installed this extension to prevent visiting any bad sites while on the server which could potentially hurt / infect / exploit the server in some way.
I thought I would enter in a site I put up for myself called drlinky.com I made it basically for myself a few years and never really developed it into a nice looking website. (I am a programmer not a designer) and it fills most of my needs. For the uninformed it shortens urls and has some other web utilities on their like ping, tracert, whois etc... I have had it up for a good number of years. I also put adwords on it, but after running it for 2 years I think I got $20. No big deal. I use it myself for the tools.
Anyway I happened to look it up and I saw it was labeled as spam. Which is interesting since the site has no email accounts setup for the domain. So not only can I send no mail for that domain, there are no chances of email accounts being hacked or steal for that domain.
Secondly it is also stated that it appears on a list of spamvertised sites. There are no other pages hosted on the site nor do we offer hosting for that site. So again I dont see how it can be called spam.
To what extent can another company be responsible for how their domain name gets used? for example what if someone sets up a blog on google and then uses spam to point people to it, is then google liable?
we do not offer url cloaking, just url forwarding, I have also put a a system in place which looks up addresses in a surbl before allowing it to become a link, furthermore I have also put into place a list or blacklisted sites which mainly consist of other url shortening sites so people do not try to hide it either. Also if anyone really wanted to contact me they could use my personal contact data which is in the whois.
Can anyone post any type of data about another site no matter what their level of understanding about internet technologies are? (eg low or poor)
How seriously does WOT consider the quality or accuracy of its reports?
KieranMullen
- Login o registrati per inviare commenti
Here is another stupid
dom 17 ago 2008 15:37:33 UTC da kieranmullenHere is another stupid rating
http://www.mywot.com/en/scorecard/img444.imageshack.us
They are an image hosting site. they cant do anything about spam or how people want to use their hosted images.
Rating system is flawed if it takes into account any spamcop listing...
Re: Here is another stupid
dom 17 ago 2008 16:03:00 UTC da SamiWe don't consider our automated sources equally reliable. If a website appears on spamcop's list of spamvertised sites, it usually has very little effect on the site's reputation. However, if a site appears in PhishTank, it's almost always enough to change the rating to red.
Little offensive ......
mar 19 ago 2008 23:03:02 UTC da MysteryFCM"We don't consider our automated sources equally reliable."
Thats a little offensive ......... if we (and by "we", I'm not just referring to hpHosts, but all of the third party services you use) aren't equally reliable, why use us?
Re: Little offensive
mar 19 ago 2008 23:18:00 UTC da SamiHow is that offensive? Reliability depends on the type of source and their methodology for gathering data. For example, some sources are fully automated and have a large number of false positives, so we consider them less reliable. Some sources are verified by actual people and are almost always accurate, so we give their data more weight when computing ratings. The reason we still use the less reliable sources is that their data can still be mostly useful, albeit more prone to errors.
Re:
mer 20 ago 2008 00:51:14 UTC da MysteryFCMIt's offensive because you've used third party sources, but at the same time, mentioned that they aren't "equally reliable" (and I assume by this, that you mean, they are less reliable than the actual users ratings?). Whilst some of the services used are fully automated, many are not - they're checked manually before inclusion, and periodically after inclusion, mine included. Of those that are fully automated (and I must stress, I am not a fan of fully automated systems), I'm willing to bet that the ladies and gents running those systems, monitor them for F/P's and other issues.
If you're going to be using third party services that you do not consider terribly reliable, then there's two things I'd strongly suggest;
1. Contact the services developers to help them improve their systems (even WOT is prone to problems, and thus, requires people contact you with F/P's and such)
2. Make a note on the relevant listings, that the third party service rating is not "equally reliable" (though I can guarantee that the service concerned, isn't going to be happy with that).
A note on the forums, such as the one above, is all well and good - a blog post/FAQ or some such, is a heck of alot better for your users.
Re: Source reliability
mer 20 ago 2008 07:22:18 UTC da SamiI'm still not sure what the problem is. As I said, reliability depends on the type and methodology. Some sources might be working exactly as intended, but they produce less reliable data by design. They don't even aim to be completely accurate and no, not all sources are monitored for false positives. Are you saying we should trust a source, which simply consists of a few honeypot addresses and a script for harvesting spamvertised links as much as hpHosts?
I don't mean they're less reliable than user ratings. In fact, even user ratings aren't all equally reliable, so comparing the reliabilities isn't really possible. Our system was designed to combine data from several sources with varying reliabilities. If we can use the less reliable data, there's really no reason not to, is there?
RE:
mer 20 ago 2008 12:17:47 UTC da MysteryFCMThe main problem I've got is that the third party services you are using, are classed by yourselves as "Trusted Sources" (as defined by the thread at: http://www.mywot.com/en/forum/1338-seeking-new-trusted-sources). If some of these sources are not reliable, how can they be trusted? and thus brings the question of why you are using them at all, or atleast, why no mention is made of the service(s) not being accurate?.
[Q]Are you saying we should trust a source, which simply consists of a few honeypot addresses and a script for harvesting spamvertised links as much as hpHosts?[/Q]
If the links are verified and validated, then yes. If not, again, why use them? and again, why is there no mention made next to the relevant source's comment listing with something along the lines of "Whilst WOT uses this source, we do not consider it 100% accurate" ???
Point being, if you're going to use a source you do not consider reliable, either don't use them, or make some mention of the fact you don't consider them reliable - and most importantly, inform the source themselves so they can improve.
Clarification
mer 20 ago 2008 12:25:19 UTC da MysteryFCMJust to clarify, the reason I have mentioned making notes about which WOT classes as reliable and which it doesn't, is that the comment that sparked this all;
"We don't consider our automated sources equally reliable."
... makes no mention of which WOT trusts, and which it doesn't - something thats going to offend the third party services involved (indeed, I was offended when I read that comment), it simply implies that the sources aren't as equally reliable as (x), but doesn't say what (x) is, which is why I thought (x) was user ratings.
Re: Clarification
mer 20 ago 2008 13:01:05 UTC da Samimakes no mention of which WOT trusts, and which it doesn't - something thats going to offend the third party services involved
I see. Just to clarify, all sources of similar type are equally trusted. It's the type of the source that determines its reliability. hpHosts is just as trusted as other similar blacklists, spamcop and other fully automated services we use are considered less reliable. I'm sure the scripts we are running to produce this data aren't hurt by this statement, they aren't meant to be perfect.
This isn't about secretly evaluating the quality of sources and silently ignoring some of the data, it's about classifying sources based on how they collect their data. I don't see how there could be any disagreement over the fact that this decides how much the data can be trusted. Sources that carefully verify their data are more reliable, but others can still be useful.
The whole point of WOT is that we combine data from multiple sources and each source has a reliability that's either determined automatically (for users) or manually (for trusted sources). All the data we have collected for a website can be completely contradictory and our job is to compute a rating for the site nevertheless. Without assigning reliabilities for each source, controlling the quality would be impossible.
Re: Unreliable sources
mer 20 ago 2008 12:46:01 UTC da SamiIf some of these sources are not reliable, how can they be trusted?
The difference between users and trusted sources are that user reliability is determined automatically, while for trusted sources we determine manually how trusted they are.
If the links are verified and validated, then yes. If not, again, why use them?
Because we can. The data might not always be reliable, but usually it is. Often these sources are first to catch new threats, even if they might sometimes mistakenly label Google too.
or make some mention of the fact you don't consider them reliable
You're right, we could add a note about this for the less reliable sources.
Re: Can stupid people make comments too?
dom 17 ago 2008 16:23:00 UTC da SamiComments can be stupid and may even contain false information, but they have no effect on the site's reputation. Comments simply allow users to explain the reasons behind their ratings, and it's completely up to the reader to decide if they can be trusted.
On the other hand, website reputations are computed from ratings given on the add-on. These ratings aren't public, and our system carefully estimates the reliability of each rating when computing reputations. Users who have proven themselves to be reliable are trusted more than others. If you want, you can read more about these concepts from our early blog posts.
Anyway, what comes to URL forwarding services, often their reputation suffers when scammers start using the service to hide their own domains in spam, even though the service itself hasn't done anything malicious. If the owners of these services would like to improve their reputation among the general population, I think they should start working on ways to prevent scammers from exploiting their services. One good way would be to stop forwarding links that lead to dangerous sites.
Sami - It s a nice thought,
lun 18 ago 2008 01:13:42 UTC da kieranmullenSami - It s a nice thought, but it isnt piratical How do you suppose I should implement that? Hire people to go through the database every time someone enters a site that could be considered harmful? New websites pop up every day. I think I have already taken a major step and use the surbl to block sites.
Again you guys have little technical knowledge and thus can't offer any piratical advice. Or none that I have see so far.
Re: Practical advise
lun 18 ago 2008 02:02:55 UTC da SamiUsing SURBL is a good start, but why would you hire people to do something that can be automated? Several services offer APIs you can use, us included.
Is my time not worth
lun 18 ago 2008 03:48:33 UTC da kieranmullenSure surbl is a good start and finish. It is far more reputable than WOT and it used by more admin worldwide.
Is my time not worth anything? If you pay me to install it I will. I dont make money off my site and I dont send mail from the domain.
KM
Re: Is my time not worth
lun 18 ago 2008 04:51:00 UTC da SamiSURBL won't protect your users from scams. Besides, if you don't care about the safety of your users, why bother trolling our forum for advice in the first place?
Oh I like how there is also
lun 18 ago 2008 03:50:58 UTC da kieranmullenOh I like how there is also a arbitrary rating for www.surbl.org as well. Vendor? They are not a vendor. 69% for reliability? Their rating should be much higher for all the work that they are and have been doing.
Bad system
Re: Oh I like how there is also
lun 18 ago 2008 04:51:51 UTC da SamiIf you disagree with the rating, why not rate the site yourself?
KieranMullen: "Can stupid
gio 21 ago 2008 05:59:55 UTC da phantazmKieranMullen: "Can stupid people make comments too?"
I guess the answer could be:
"We don't consider our manual sources equally reliable."
After all, 'Stupid robots make errors too'...
;)
The Reliability of 'Reliable'
gio 21 ago 2008 06:40:45 UTC da phantazmSo far the present debate has been quite general,
so the principal aspects should be covered.
I might supply with a specific example:
Last month I noticed that www.polarrose.com was rated red in WOT.
An obvious errror! How could WOT be so unreliable..?
Then I noticed that the red ratings came from hphosts. Aha,
then WOT was innocent, and hphosts in error, not reliable...
I mailed them though, and received a prompt reply.
The issue quickly resolved, the reputation of the rose restored...
Once removed from hphosts lists, WOT also changed its mind,
and now I may conclude that in spite of errors then
problems was resolved quickly, and that I'll find
quite reliable...
Morale: Reliability is less connected to errors created than errors corrected.
Afterthought: I would rather mention Siteadvisor as unreliable, when it comes to response. Most times you'll get no reply at all. If you're lucky a long but canned reply. And really lucky to receive a oneliner, and thereafter nothing. I don't question the staff, though, rather SA seem severely understaffed. And underfinanced, maintained but not developed. ..
Therefore faulty ratings hang on for months, while reviewers of any reputation are ignored, and some eventually leave. But what to do about it? I've written a few suggestions here: http://www.siteadvisor.com/sites/siteadvisor.com/postid/?p=1059946#post1...
SA seem severely understaffed
ven 22 ago 2008 15:25:59 UTC da YoKennyI thought it was totally unmanned except for a Security guard that wandered in once a month to make sure that the lights are on.
Accuracy of ratings
gio 21 ago 2008 07:28:18 UTC da Esa S.This thread makes interesting reading. There is no such system in the world that would give 100% accuracy when it comes to website security. That is why WOT gets information from the users and from the trusted sources. Unlike some other systems, we really listen to our users and look into each potential error - and react fast. The bigger the active user population gets, the better the quality of the information gets. We have benchmarked the quality of WOT ratings with other similar systems and seen that we can be proud of what we have achieved so far. That doesn't mean that we couldn't get better - we will! Keep on rating sites, leaving comments, and sending feedback. It makes a difference!