General discussion
I need help please
fre 13 nov 2009 18.27.00 av logodudeHello,
It seems WOT giving us a bad rating and warning users.
http://www.mywot.com/scorecard/logomyway.com
I'm not sure how they collected the data but it's not accurate.
I work very very hard to keep our great reputation.
The ratings are very inaccurate and I don't want this to hurt our reputation.
Please let me know what we can do to correct this.
If you can please rate our site. I would really appreciate it.
Thanks for any help you can give us.
http://www.Logomyway.com
Thanks
Joe
- logga in eller registrera dig för att kunna kommentera
Not investigated yet, but
fre 13 nov 2009 18.45.04 av BobJamI noticed that the four positive comments were made by individuals with one post and no ratings (with the exception of yourself, with two posts). Not necessarily an indicator of a bad site, and you are certainly free to comment as you wish, but it does look suspicious.
I will investigate the site, and whichever rating I choose, I will comment so that at least there is a comment made by someone with more than 1 or 2 posts and some ratings.
comments
fre 13 nov 2009 18.56.11 av logodudeI was reaching out to our community of designers to get real human ratings.
What seems suspicious? WOT suggests I do this when rating are poor.
As many ratings as there are you would think more people would leave comments.
They came up with my rating by pulling data from
del.icio.us and digg ?
I have been on hundreds of blogs and in the media for having a very good reputation.
I'm really confused.
Reasons for "suspicion"
fre 13 nov 2009 21.22.00 av BobJam"What seems suspicious?"
Was simply saying that the only comments that were left were made by individuals that only had one post, and the site owner (if that's you). "Suspicious" does not = bad, just means that those comments were made by individuals that had not earned reliability with WOT yet. Nothing wrong with that, but a comment by an individual with more reliability would help reduce "suspicion".
But I'll reiterate . . . this does not indicate in and of itself that the site is malicious. What it indicates is that individuals that have not established reliability in ratings have commented. A favorable comment (or any comment for that matter) by an individual that has established reliability would help. That's why I say I'll leave a comment after I rate.
"They came up with my rating by pulling data from del.icio.us and digg ?"
NO!!!
another
fre 13 nov 2009 19.16.05 av logodudeanother logo site with a bad rep because of digg and delicious
http://www.mywot.com/scorecard/logosnap.com
Somethings not right. I hope this can be fixed
AFAIK
fre 13 nov 2009 19.26.02 av sebsauvageAFAIK, Delicious/Digg mention does not influence the ratings.
And the category comment is neutral.
digg
fre 13 nov 2009 19.26.20 av logodudeI also found this
http://www.mywot.com/forum/1900-is-digg-a-good-...
digg
fre 13 nov 2009 19.29.13 av logodudedigg and delicious were the only 2 references causing this rating.
Not the issue
fre 13 nov 2009 20.43.22 av BobJamAs sebsauvage said, being listed on digg and delicious would not cause your rating to decline. Digg and delicious are not "causing this rating". Besides, comments do not have an impact at all on ratings. They are just an optional mechanism for raters to explain why they rated a certain way, but a rater is not compelled to make a comment in order to rate.
ratings
fre 13 nov 2009 19.33.11 av logodudechild safety, privacy etc..They are all wrong. All you have to do is look at the site to see this. How can logo designs be unsafe for children???
Hm...
lör 14 nov 2009 18.28.28 av phantazmYour overall rating is green, so there is not an imminent problem of users being scared away. The yellow in the mixture is however completely uncommented, so it's hard to guess raters reasons. All comments are (presently) green, but as others has pointed out:
A rating from a person, who has no other activity, means practically nothing yet. (Remember, WOT is a meritocracy...)
@ logodude
lör 14 nov 2009 19.41.38 av g7wWelcome to WOT Forum
First comments versus ratings.
They are 2 completely different entities within WOT.
Ratings are "votes" cast by WOT Members, they are what changes the color of a website in WOT's color code scale (green, yellow, red, and shades in between). Like votes in a political poll... ratings are private - you do not know who rated your site or how. Do not assume a comment, and in which category it is placed, reflects how a rating was made.
Comments are opinions and have no relation to a site's rating; they are optional.
Trusted sources vary in their rating effectiveness.
Sites like Digg and Delicious are social bookmarking sites, their ratings are minimal and do not display "color" - unrated sites which display the color gray with a blue question mark can have these references in the Comments section.
Overall ratings are determined by WOT users who may or may not leave a comment.
If a Trusted Source is used to lower the sites rating, a comment from the red category selection list will be made and if possible, a link will be provided for reference; example would be a malicious site found in a database from MalwareDomainList.com (MDL) or a number of Spam blacklists such as Joe Wein.
Sites that are red with no human user comments and no domain blacklist references were rated by people who did not wish to comment; most likely having a bad experience with the website or the products / services it may offer.
-------
WOT Services Ltd. - gives us safety through Web of Trust.
WOT Community - gives us security through unity.
Thank you all
- G7W
digg
lör 14 nov 2009 21.48.24 av logodudeI only had 2 references digg and delicous that made up my ranking. It was red saying my site was not safe to visit. I don't think this should happen to any site that is safe to visit. I reached out to my community of designers to rank LMW and it came up into the green.
My concern is why did it say logomyway was not safe to visit?
It would be like Norton showing WOT as malware and then you have to defend yourself to get off the list. So why did WOT say LMW was not safe?
re: digg
sön 15 nov 2009 01.32.08 av g7wI only had 2 references digg and delicous that made up my ranking
You are missing the point.
digg and delicious are listed in the comment section and they are not what makes up the "ranking" or WOT Ratings of your site.
WOT only references what others have to "say" - on it's own WOT says nothing.
Please re-read my post.
-------
WOT Services Ltd. - gives us safety through Web of Trust.
WOT Community - gives us security through unity.
Thank you all
- G7W
@g7w, there should be a
lör 14 nov 2009 23.35.43 av Delan Azabani@g7w, there should be a "canned response" so you don't have to type this. :)
re: canned response
sön 15 nov 2009 01.36.02 av g7wThere will be...
Since the Scorecard has changed, I need to take new images and then rewrite some of the wiki article, then I'll get back to finishing the comment section - when I get more time. Then it would be a simple link to WOT Comments
-------
WOT Services Ltd. - gives us safety through Web of Trust.
WOT Community - gives us security through unity.
Thank you all
- G7W
this site
lör 14 nov 2009 21.52.30 av logodudeHere is a site that WOT says is unsafe..Why?
http://www.mywot.com/scorecard/logosnap.com
You can see Digg and Delicous only.
.
So maybe this company just lost a couple of clients because of false ratings??
another thing I noticed
lör 14 nov 2009 22.00.42 av logodudeThe first day I had a report card on WOT I was not safe to visit. No one had time to even rate my site. So does WOT gather their own info from a bot to get the initial report card?
Missing again
mån 16 nov 2009 14.09.10 av BobJamAs g7w said, you're missing the point. Go back and read his post again.
That will answer all the issues you have raised here.
"The first day I had a report card on WOT I was not safe to visit."
And now you are green. The WOT community has evidently gone back and re-rated your site . . . based on your posts here. The system has worked as it should.
In fact, had you been rated red on McAfee SitAdvisor, it would have taken you a whole lot longer to get the rating changed. Here at WOT, ratings are user driven, and can be changed by users almost instantly. SA, OTOH, IS bot driven . . . consequently, it takes quite a bit of time to get SA to send out those bots again (and thereby re-rate). All it takes here is a post on this forum, as you have done!
"So does WOT gather their own info from a bot to get the initial report card?"
This indicates that you still are not "getting it". The "initial report card" you are referring to are comments. Once again, as g7w said, and I said also, COMMENTS ARE NOT RATINGS. Plus, as sebsauvage pointed out, the dig and delicious comments are gray ('neutral"), meaning that those comments are neither red nor green COMMENTS (and not RATINGS anyway).
It also indicates that you still think WOT itself makes ratings. As g7w pointed out, WOT does NOT make ratings . . . it merely "publishes" the ratings made by members (the same individuals that apparently CHANGED their ratings of your site).
You definitely need to go back and read g7w's post again.
comment is not
mån 16 nov 2009 16.49.47 av demonluocomment is not rating...
there can be 100000 users rate a single site w/o any comment...