General discussion
Has anyone noticed Nortons new SafeWeb..?
gio 21 ago 2008 21:48:15 UTC da phantazmIt looks as if new 'site-advisors' are popping up here and there now:
Has anyone noticed Nortons new SafeWeb:
http://safeweb.norton.com/report/show?url=mywot.com&x=0&y=0
- Login o registrati per inviare commenti
Norton Safe Web
gio 21 ago 2008 22:07:52 UTC da Security_WizYes, I have. In fact, I was just on their website two minutes ago. I like helping new site-advisors grow so everyone can be safe, happy, and alerted, but WOT is my official one. I like updating Web Ste Guard's website database. I wish that NSW was available for Mac on Safari. I'm keeping WOT on Firefox.
However, NSW sometimes is wrong about websites. Let me get a few examples. I'll be right back.
Edit:
http://safeweb.norton.com/report/show?url=iran.com&x=0&y=0
http://www.mywot.com/en/scorecard/www.iran.com
http://safeweb.norton.com/report/show?url=www.smileycentral.com&x=0&y=0
http://www.mywot.com/en/scorecard/www.smileycentral.com
I think that proves my point. It still detects many bad websites, though.
LOL Norton.
gio 21 ago 2008 22:20:07 UTC da Family PCLOL Norton.
I would prefer a root canal
ven 22 ago 2008 14:59:10 UTC da YoKennyI would prefer a root canal operation on a back molar than using Norton ( Symantec )
Strange concept of safety.
ven 22 ago 2008 03:07:11 UTC da logicmanAnyone can add a 'review' even a non-user!
OCR is no protection against the bots - it was hacked long ago.
:-)
Stay safe!
mywot
ven 22 ago 2008 05:53:41 UTC da andre9As we are ranked by mywot.com as 79 percent trustworthy, I guess that whatever I type should not be trusted. I am surprised though that we are not also ranked as very child unsafe? http://www.cubit.co.za is probably the most dangerous place on the Internet for children. They should be protected against untrustworthy accounting software and open source freaks at all costs. Thinking is dangerous.
Re: cubit.co.za
ven 22 ago 2008 06:11:00 UTC da SamiWhat are you ranting about? The site doesn't even have a child safety rating at the moment.
Re: cubit.co.za and why mywot.com SUCKS
ven 22 ago 2008 06:23:18 UTC da andre9exactly. When a site, or domain, is new to any type of rating system you
cannot just rate that it is x percent trustworthy. Rather say: NOT ENOUGH VOTES TO RATE or something like that.
I think mywot.com SUCKS at the moment, mainly because you say that I am untrustworthy. I make accounting software?? Just mentioning 79 percent trustworthy is scary to ANY accountant.
Get it?
Anyway, what you are doing needs to get done, whether you are the right people to do it remains to be seen.
So rate me as 79 percent trustworthy, I do not care. I am not going to ask my community to come and vote for me, they can decide for themselves.
Re: Huh?!
ven 22 ago 2008 06:54:52 UTC da SamiSee the large gray icon with a question mark on it? It means there aren't enough ratings for your site. On the other hand, the light green icon means the site has been rated. We can't control what people think about your site, but unless your paranoia has gone completely out of control, that's far from untrustworthy or scary.
You're not the only website owner who suddenly finds themselves opposed to this whole democracy concept when their rating turns out to be less than perfect. Still, I'm pretty sure going ballistic on our forum isn't going to help. So why don't you relax and take a few deep breaths. Your site's rating will change as soon as more people rate it.
Hmm
ven 22 ago 2008 09:04:36 UTC da andre9LOL, I am not going ballistic on your forum, I simply do not agree. You should
be saying - not enough votes - yet you are saying x percent - I love the democratic nature of the Internet, and this is one of the truly great things -> being able to disagree with a site on the site itself... <- And sofar the mywot community actually looks like really cool place to be.
You should only consider changing that one little thing and mywot.com, in my opinion (that hardly matters I am but one little cog in a huge machine)
BUT in my opinion, until the time when you can explain why I am wrong, I still think mywot SUCKS...
Oh, and I am now only 78 percent trustworthy, hahahahahaha, soon I will be at 10 percent... - I am dropping in trustworthyness as I type -
:)
andre
Re: Hmm
ven 22 ago 2008 09:46:11 UTC da SamiWe are saying "not enough votes" for those rating components where there really aren't enough of them. If we have enough ratings, then we compute a numeric value for the reputation. Reputations are a collective measure of trust for your website. We chose to represent them on a linear scale from 0 to 100, because trust isn't a binary value.
No problem, andre9
ven 22 ago 2008 11:22:13 UTC da logicmanI take your point.
The great thing about WOT is the ability to react fairly rapidly to input.
imho that outweighs other factors.
I have just rated your site - you may like what you see. :-)
PS I have added a rating on (whisper) site advisor.
It's ok!
ven 22 ago 2008 13:23:29 UTC da Esa S.The scale of the WOT rating is explained in the guide that can be accessed from the link in the upper right corner of the rating window:
- Dark green = Excellent
- Light green = Good
- Yellow = Unsatisfactory
- Light red = Poor
- Dark red = Very poor
The numeric value has not really much significance when you use the system, but as we know computers calculate with numbers.
Lets take an example:
- I met yesterday this new guy Mike at the bar
- What do you think of him?
- He's OK!
This "OK" would translate into "Good" in WOT, not because there was something wrong with Mike, but the person has only known him for a short time.
Cool
ven 22 ago 2008 15:55:00 UTC da andre9Okay, I agree WOT does not suck for me any longer, now WOT is cool. Not because of the rating but because you are right and I am wrong.
I now notice the shades of green, did not see that before...
Anyway, will be happily rating sites the whole weekend and spreading the word about the WOT
thx, this community is very cool
:)
andre
Welcome on board, Andre!
ven 22 ago 2008 20:53:49 UTC da SharonZSharonZ
New SiteAdvisors
lun 08 set 2008 20:15:43 UTC da ReprotectedI always imagined a SiteAdvisor for Norton but I never knew it would come true, but, there are plenty of SiteAdvisors or related.
Heres a list:
Against Intuition's WOT
McAfee SiteAdvisor
Symantec Norton SafeWeb
Grisoft/Explabs Linkscanner
TrendMicro's (TrendSecure) TrendProtect
Haute Secure
GeoTrust's TrustWatch Search (discontinued I believed)
ScanSafe's Scandoo
Crawler's Web Security Guard Toolbar
Google's Web Forgery/Attack Blocker for Mozilla Firefox
Security Guard for Internet Explorer
Stopbadware's Messages for Google (This site may harm your computer.)
Finjan SecureBrowsing
PhishTank SiteChecker
and more ...
lun 08 set 2008 21:58:04 UTC da logicmanNetcraft toolbar - the Netcraft community supplies reports on latest phish emails.
There's a reasonably fast reaction.
You simply paste the bogus URL into their box, and get an instant response -
either "Already blocked" or "We'll check this out."
Couldn't be simpler.
Er, well ...
Some conflict between McAfee, Netcraft and my other tools
all trying to block me from going to an already tested site.
It resolves itself, but takes up to 1 minute. It gets in the way of my access to those sites,
but I guess that's the whole point. We reviewers have no grounds for complaint there!
Actually, that 'hiccup' is a very good price to pay for free software. :-)
No noticeable issues here
mar 09 set 2008 06:16:25 UTC da lordpakeNo noticeable issues here with Netcraft toolbar/SiteAdvisor combo in Firefox. Then again I don't intentionally visit such pages that often to notice anything getting blocked.
Besides KIS seems to block stuff first anyhow :)
"Men make good pets."
The main problem that I
mar 09 set 2008 11:41:49 UTC da RobThe main problem that I encounter is with the Netcraft toolbar when I am rating on Phishtank. Seeing as you need to view the site on phishtank before voting, it's a pain when several toolbars try to block the site. WOT is easy enough to disable, but Netcraft involves browser restarts.
SA is a blocking machine
mer 10 set 2008 21:46:33 UTC da ReprotectedIf you set up Linkscanner or PhishTank SiteChecker with SiteAdvisor, and use your search engine, those symbols get blocked by SA... They did it once with WOT, how cheap...