(The quickest way to register)
Please rate them red for spamming Wot
Reported to Admins!!!
User got banned: : http://www.mywot.com/user/2262530
I don't think that it is right to rate sites in that way. Forum
spamming gets users banned and that should be enough.
Sites should be rated on content and any ratings for spamming
should be based on the correct interpretation of spamming being the
repeated sending of unsolicited e-mail advertising.
~Music is not just for the Masses~
Sites ought to be rated on their merits.
If a user is banned as a result of breach of guidelines, it is
punishment enough that his / her 'voice' is silenced on the forum;
that they have no recourse to raise issues or objections, or to
contribute in any meaningful fashion.
If a user is banned as a result of breach of guidelines, it
is punishment enough that his / her 'voice' is silenced on the
Is that ok that peoples try these seo techniques after knowing all
that the bots mostly use in these techniques spam forums...
Is that ok that peoples try these seo techniques after
knowing all these facts...
that the bots mostly use in these techniques spam
No. As I stated, the site ought to be rated on its merits.
If the site is demonstrably instrumental or complicit in
spamming, then it should be rated accordingly. If the user is
demonstrably instrumental or complicit in spamming, then he / she
shall be dealt with accordingly by WOT administration.
I don't think that it is right to rate sites in that way.
Forum spamming gets users banned and that should be
Here peoples spam and we rate their website red for forum spamming
Sites should be rated on content and any ratings for
spamming should be based on the correct interpretation of
I know that we rate the website based on their content but some
morons try to use marketing bots which usually post their articles
and other stuff here and we rate them for forum spamming as under
category of SPAM...
Many of the peoples use some Black Hat SEO technique which nothing
help in good but creates a spamming reputation for website...
I hope you can see that post posted by one moron which is recently
deleted by SAMI tehn it would help you more in decision...
"we rate their website red for forum spamming"
You might rates sites in that way but I do not.
"some morons try to use marketing bots which usually post
their articles and other stuff here"
What evidence do you have for making that claim? I have never
seen anything on this forum that looks like it came from
"marketing bots", although I have seen plenty of
human-generated promotional postings.
You might rates sites in that way but I do not.
Yes you can do as you want...But we rate those website for forum
What evidence do you have for making that claim?
Evidences how cud i have bcoz i haven't done spamming ever...Yes
once when i wished here for NEW YEAR!!!
I have seen plenty of human-generated promotional
I have seen too...most recent eg.
"Evidences how cud i have"
the thread was deleted by Sami so how could i show that you can
the thread was not cached at that time...
Agreed. A friend of mine used to advertise his site on another
forum sometimes. Though I think he generally asked for permission
first. I think sites should be rated on their content, not on how
they choose to market their site.
I think sites should be rated on their content, not on how
they choose to market their site.
Obviously it can be rated if they sent spam and use unethical
methods to promote their website and if you don't think so then you
can rate them green.
Your links do not lead to any evidence that I could use to
red-rate a site. So basically you're just asking members to do it
on your personal say so.
From the rating guidelines:
"Rate only those sites you know"
That guideline is an important protection (if observed) against
Remember WoT Guideline: "Only rate sites that you know"
forum spamming has been performed and you can verify by admins
about this website and the thread i have refer which is deleted
against herd mentality.
And i think you forget to read whole forum guidelines...
5. Be respectful of others
I think that you're saying that the "Rate only sites which you
know" guideline can be safely ignored if I can verify that someone
did something naughty here with the forum admins? Are the forum
admins really happy that sites should be red-rated on their
personal say so? Perhaps they should comment on that. If it is
really the case then why bother to ask members to red-rate the site
at all? Cut out the middle-man and let the admins just force-mark
the site to zero on every count.
If sites are to be mass-red-rated because the forum here gets
spammed it seems to me we're placing a powerful commercial weapon
in the hands of the unscrupulous. Perhaps the forum admins here
have superb tools for ascertaining guilt without doubt. Much better
than for example the tools used by hpHosts or Spamcop, both of
which already fill that niche.
If you find phrases like "herd mentality", which is a mild and
commonly used description of a common form of human behaviour
"disrespectful" then I apologise for that, and I'll try to approve
my manners in future. Perhaps most forums that I post on don't have
such high standards as here.
I think that you're saying that the "Rate only sites which
you know" guideline can be safely ignored if I can verify that
someone did something naughty here with the forum
No who asked you to ignore forum guidelines...
The websites i have reported here i got through a post which
contains nothing than a marketing article..
Are the forum admins really happy that sites should be
red-rated on their personal say so?
Again admins haven't ask me to post this thread and nor they will
happy with any red/green rating...
If sites are to be mass-red-rated
I don't have any MRT and i can't have bcoz its available for only
Selected Platinum Member...
Perhaps the forum admins here have superb tools for
ascertaining guilt without doubt.
And what kind of tool you are refering for???
Much better than for example the tools used by hpHosts or
Spamcop, both of which already fill that niche.
You don't know than i would like to explain you that Hphosts file
is very trusted source bcoz its human operated and all website that
are listed there are completely verified..
Perhaps most forums that I post on don't have such high
standards as here.
At least i never use any offensive or any commonly used language
for anyone here and not expect the same for me..
But its my personal opinion and you don't think too much about
I think we're talking past each other, rather than to each
other. Doubtless you feel that your responses in the post above are
a counterpoint to my argument, but I don't find them responsive to
what I was saying at all. It is as if you've picked up on
particular words I've used but not on the actual argument that I'm
making. Maybe I'm expressing myself poorly in which case I
apologise, or perhaps there is a language or cultural barrier. I'm
not sure. Evidently I'm not making the point that I'm making clear
to you. We aren't communicating, so I'm going to stop trying, and
leave you with the last word on the subject (above). Others can
read our points and decide which of us to agree with, as ever in
all online media.
One more forum spamming
For those who needs evidences
If a user starts a single thread about his own website, lists
what he considers are its good points, and asks us to rate the
site, it might be spamming, or it might be someone not
understanding what criteria we use to judge. It's not as clear cut
as hijacking a thread, starting multiple threads, or posting inane
comments with a link to an unrelated website just to try to boost
search engine ranking.
There are also different standards of courtesy in some
countries: Someone from China might feel complimented that a
business owner makes the effort to contact him to try to get him as
a customer, whereas we feel that even if only legitimate businesses
did so the volume of such contacts would be too much.
As far as HPhosts, it is not that reliable -- Steven Burn posted
a blog entry asking people not to use the list as an absolute
authority, because there are older entries that are not
well-substantiated. Some very safe sites were on the list, and
unfortunately, some people relied on the HPHosts blacklist to post
uneditable reviews on SiteAdvisor that are sitting there
embarrassing them to this day.
vevocart.com itself seems a case in point. HPHosts lists it as
phish, yet it is clearly owned by Vevosystems.com, a five-year old
domain that is not blacklisted by HPhosts. As there is a link to
vevocart.com from vevosystems.com's own website, what is it
supposed to be spoofing?
Yes, WOT has a wiki. Check there first
for fast answers to many questions like "Why is my
site rated red, and how do I fix that?"
I know it well but i have rated only for spamming here i have
posted cached page of that link ...
Did i got something wrong about this ...Please let me know what you
I've taken a look round the site.
The hpHosts rating, in my opinion, is pretty clearly a false
accusation (a term that I prefer greatly to the weasel words "false
positive", which imply that the false accusation is an "Act of God"
that the accuser has no control over)
I can see nothing wrong there. The site itself looks solid and
reputable and well designed, and I haven't received any spam from
the site. So I've rated it accordingly.
As you can see the listing of hphosts is not older ...and i have
again only rated for spamming here...
I have PM to steven about this situation...
Steven has made it very clear, several times, that hpHosts is
one opinion only, and should not be relied upon as an authority
that trumps people's own judgement about a site. I know this, to my
own sure and certain personal knowledge, because my own site was
recently listed for phishing by hpHosts in error (there
was no evidence to back up the accusation, it was a simple
mistake), and Steven has apologised to me for that. He does
not want other people rating sites based on his lists.
Unfortunately the evidence is that some prominent members here, at
least, ignore Steve's wishes in that regard.
As for the spamming I'm unconvinced. That message could equally
well be someone who wants rating and doesn't understand how this
site works, or someone who misunderstood the entire purpose of this
site, or a competitor who wants to damage that site by attracting
lots of red ratings from here, or likewise a disaffected employee
who wants to damage that site. I don't see evidence that the site
habitually bombards the internet at random with spam. When I get
some spam from that site myself I would re-rate accordingly.
I don't see evidence that the site habitually bombards the
internet at random with spam.
And i would like to know what a forum spamming in your terms...
a competitor who wants to damage that site by attracting
lots of red ratings from here, or likewise a disaffected employee
who wants to damage that site.,/em>
Yes both cases may be true or this could be done a SEO executive
also...It can't be judge at this moment...and furthermore if owner
feels that these ratings are in appropriate then can ask for us to
re evaluate their website ...
We always ready to help everyone...
That message may be a forum spamming, or it may be something
else, as I've already indicated. By all means rate the site
yourself based on your own assessment.
But urging other members to do the same thing is not responsible
behaviour, I think. That site is the livelihood of its owners and
employees. If they're spamming all over the internet then doubtless
they will attract an appropriate number of red ratings from WoT
members who receive those spams and I would be the first person to
applaud such ratings. I hate receiving spam too. But to punish them
massively disproportionately for one possible spam just because it
happened here is not fair. Such actions make this forum far too
powerful. Witness for the prosecution, prosecutor , judge, jury,
and executioner all rolled into one.
That's just my opinion. I'm done on this particular one now so
if you respond you'll have the last word. You aren't going to
persuade me, and I'm not going to persuade you. Others can form
their own opinion of who is right. I would be interested, however,
in what the WoT admins think about this issue. I'm slightly
surprised that they've remained silent on this thread because I
think this issue goes to the heart of what judgements members
should be encouraged to make when they rate a site.
"But to punish them massively disproportionately for one
possible spam just because it happened here is not fair. Such
actions make this forum far too powerful. Witness for the
prosecution, prosecutor , judge, jury, and executioner all rolled
Echo. If they're spam bots, you'll find lots of evidence on
other forums, too.
I usually check 2 sites before rating:
it appears there's sufficient evidence that this site / shopping
cart software is linked from many different blogs / forums as mere
∞ Opto, ergo sum _https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/And_You_and_I
This "punish" word has been flying around here, and I'm
not sure that's the message we want to convey to site owners.
I mean, really, we're not here to "punish" as much as
we're here to help BOTH users AND site owners. To "punish"
makes it sound indeed like we're "judge, jury, and executioner" and
our main task is to take site owners out to the woodshed and give
them a whuppin'.
Granted, when we find something that needs remedied and remains
untouched, we generally come down hard, and that is
But our main focus in rating is to render an opinion on whether
or not we TRUST a site.
If we don't trust a site, that may be viewed as a
"punishment', but I don't think many, if any at all,
seasoned raters come out of the gate with "punishment" in
mind. Some raters DO however, and that's why I think you see those
accusations of "witch hunt", as if we're some kind of 21st century
Plus, I think there's wayyyyyy too much emphasis on scorecard
spamming . . . though I wouldn't deny that it DOES happen.
Nevertheless, most of the time it turns out to be a novice site
owner who doesn't know how things work on scorecards, and makes an
There was one thread I saw recently where a site owner seemed to
be bending over backwards to accommodate some who kept telling him
he was doing it "wrong" and insisted he was spamming.
Last I saw, the guy was asking if he adhered to their "rules",
as if these people were indeed "judge, jury, and executioner".
Some people here have site owners so intimidated that it's like
the site owner is saying "Tell me how high you want me to jump, and
I'll do it." No wonder we get accused of being on a "power
This was clearly spam, and reported to MyWot as such.
vevocart.com has been removed from hpHosts, but was added due to
the spam (evidently made an error when assigning its classification
though as it was meant to receive the GRM classification not the
Regards Steven Burn I.T. Mate / hpHosts it-mate.co.uk /
Well, I did some searching to assure myself we weren't crushing
some naif who thought he was giving a good pitch for his site's WOT
rating. By looking up that username "minery" and the term
"profile," I did indeed find forum spam on other sites:
and so on. They aren't hard to find. They are clearly forum spam
-- he has not contributed anything to the forums other than posts
promoting his own business.
So, red from me, too.
If it's velvocart, I rated it too. What a shame, does he[or is
it she] not have any dignity?
"Bri" for short. Surf safely.
WOT shows website reputation icons next to links in most search engines, social media platforms, and many popular sites.