Jump to content

The Safe Free Download Site

Why not become a full member?, it's fast, free and allows you to participate in our forums and add or comment on our free software, leave reviews, access unlimited free downloads and more! - we NEVER share your details with anyone else, that's a promise! ... REGISTER FREE TODAY


");

Can we rely on WOT's ratings system?


64 replies to this topic

#41 AlphaCentauri

    Advanced Poster!

  • Advanced Member
  • 16 posts

    Posted 16 December 2011 - 06:27 PM

    The WOT algorithm doesn't automatically remove people whose views differ from the average -- all ratings from sites like the Church of Scientology would disappear then, since it's all 0% or 100% ratings and no one actually near the average -- but if users are removed for abuse their ratings also are removed. That is done manually by administrators. It's not a rare event, as you can imagine, with all the SEO sockpuppet spammers abusing other people's websites.


    #42 Claw

      Platinum Poster!

    • Advanced Member
    • 249 posts

      Posted 16 December 2011 - 07:05 PM

      "WOT (Web Of Trust) has grown to one of the most popular site advisory services around, but can we actually 'trust' WOT's ratings??"
      That is the first line of this whole thread. That is the question asked by Jim ! In all that has transpired ,has "THAT" question "REALLY" been answered?

      #43 marko

        Platinum Poster!

      • Root Admin
      • 25,384 posts

        Posted 16 December 2011 - 07:49 PM

        I'd be inclined to say yes, most of the time - but as we've always said, if you consider what any advisory says then do your own homework you shouldn't go far wrong. It's impossible, as we've found, to create an advisory that could promise 100% accuracy, so the next question for me is who comes the closest?. Personally, I'd go for WOT because they will correct mistakes quickly and have an easy to reach appraisal system for website owners unlike any of the other advisories :)

        #44 Claw

          Platinum Poster!

        • Advanced Member
        • 249 posts

          Posted 16 December 2011 - 10:14 PM

          Thank you Marko,,now I wonder if you can convince the mighty Jim of that !! Another thing,,WOTs representatives were to say the least ,,very cooperative,,even if some points were never seen "eye to eye" a lot was learned !! One lesson and may be it is the most important one of all is: No matter how good or bad a site is and no matter how good WOT,or any other advisor is,,,the final judgement all comes down to and from "yourself"!!!!
          You know Marko,,something tells me we haven't quite heard the last of this issue,,so keep the Tylenol handy!!!!Lol. :dash2:

          #45 James (Jim) Hillier

            Platinum Poster!

          • Super Mod
          • 846 posts

            Posted 16 December 2011 - 10:18 PM

            Yes, the entire site rating system is a bit of a conundrum and I certainly do not claim to have the answers. What I do know is this; in a civilized society it is not considered morally nor ethically acceptable behavior to cast aspersions on someone's reputation without providing any clear evidence. Plus, the vast majority of Western civilization is based on the premise that you are innocent until proven guilty, Elements of WOT's policy clearly reverse that emphasis and it becomes - guilty until proven innocent.

            I must say too, that I have been singling out WOT in this instance but MSA is no better. The frequency of this happening through WOT might be higher than through MSA but MSA is equally guilty. Have a look at this MSA Site Report HERE.

            All downloads from the site have been rated safe, there is absolutely zero negative detail on the report page, yet the site is rated RED. That same site is rated Green by both WOT and Browser Defender - someone has to be wrong!! As far as ratings systems go, clearly there is work to be done!!

            Jim Hillier - Managing editor Daves Computer Tips.com

            #46 Claw

              Platinum Poster!

            • Advanced Member
            • 249 posts

              Posted 16 December 2011 - 10:27 PM

              Like I said Jim,,keep the Tylenol handy. Jim,,buddy ,I sure am glad I'm on your good side!!!! :sarcastic:

              #47 marko

                Platinum Poster!

              • Root Admin
              • 25,384 posts

                Posted 16 December 2011 - 11:26 PM

                Hmm, maybe I spoke too soon?. On my travels today through our updates I came across the name of minidvdsoft.com once again (I say again, because I previously de-listed all of their products from the site when I found multiple suspicious files in their software) and I've since found that WOT are actually rating them as "Good". Looking at the WOT scorecard (http://www.mywot.com/en/scorecard/minidvdsoft.com) shows all four cats as "good" also, yet there is a warning from the trusted source "DNS-BH" stating "Appeared on malware domain blocklist"???.

                There are also multiple negative comments, in fact, there aren't any good ones yet the site still appears as "Good" to anyone using the WOT add-on or LinkExtend?. This, despite the fact there are seriously obvious issues with this site which have been noted and rated as such by WOT users - but we still see a "Good" rating. Here are some of the issues I described in another thread on FBB ...

                Quote


                I understand comments don't make up any form of a site's reputation, but in this case I'm left wondering why a trusted source (WOT's words by the way) aren't reflected more-so in the ratings - I say "more-so" cause I have to assume they have attributed to a downgrading of the sites rep in some way, but possibly not enough to mark the site as "unsatisfactory" or worse which, in my opinion, it should be, given the severity of the findings.

                This is a massive set-back for me personally, as what I thought I'd understood from the WOT system has just been blown out of the water when an obvious distributor of malicious material can be rated "Good" after I myself rated it poorly and presumably so did those who made the other negative comments. So does this mean that those who have rated it positively have more trust than us who rated it negatively, or does it just mean more people have rated it positively than negatively. Either way, I think I may stand to be corrected on what I thought I understood about WOT!!

                #48 Claw

                  Platinum Poster!

                • Advanced Member
                • 249 posts

                  Posted 16 December 2011 - 11:46 PM

                  Read it all chief , in detail and for what it's worth,,I agree this issue should be addressed. Reading the reports seem like a contradiction to what has just transpired!!!! It also just made Jims day!!!! :D

                  #49 AlphaCentauri

                    Advanced Poster!

                  • Advanced Member
                  • 16 posts

                    Posted 17 December 2011 - 02:40 AM

                    You'll see the same thing with sites like Pirate Bay. It has a huge number of users, and a lot of them have left ratings on WOT. There are 75 pages of comments. The people using the site know there are illegal downloads. That's why they're there. They also know some of the downloads are dangerous, but they believe they have a magical ability to avoid them.

                    Can you rely on WOT ratings? If you mean, "Can I blindly accept ratings without using my own common sense?" -- no. That will never be the case with any rating site. You might hope to get close by limiting the scope of what you rate, so that experienced users can have strong influence. But WOT tries to take on the entire internet and specifically lets everyone rate. In cases where large numbers of people are intentionally engaging in illegal activity, you get screwy ratings.

                    SiteAdvisor, by the way, also gives Pirate Bay a green rating. It doesn't crawl any files that it can't find by following links from the home page. If you need to be a member to get yourself in trouble, MSA can't help you.

                    Edited by AlphaCentauri, 17 December 2011 - 02:40 AM.


                    #50 Claw

                      Platinum Poster!

                    • Advanced Member
                    • 249 posts

                      Posted 17 December 2011 - 03:10 AM

                      I for one understand you completely,,but if the report shows the presence of Trojans and other malicious entities and WOT still gives it a "green " rating,,,how exactly is WOT helping the user????








                      1 user(s) are reading this topic

                      0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users