64 replies to this topic

[Claw]

BobJam, on 18 December 2011 - 12:31 AM, said:

I told myself I was going to stay out of this thread, especially since you fellows have a separate thread dedicated to questions for Sami (and perhaps you should transfer some of the questions here in this thread to that one, particularly the repeated notion that the "main question has not been answered" . . . not sure I know what that is, anyway.)

The questions you have here are valid, so perhaps they should be reiterated in the thread where Sami will give answers.  (Some may be duplicates, so perhaps a "summary" number-by-number post there would be appropriate . . . frankly, there are so many questions it may be confusing without an itemized summary.)

Anyway, I keep getting sucked back in because I can't refrain from answering.  AC also has tried admirably, and is also much more knowledgeable than I on WOT (he is still active . . . I am NOT . . . and he is also active on SA, so can render opinions there better than I can.)

As much as AC and I try to answer your questions, perhaps Sami can be more helpful.

James (Jim) Hillier, on 18 December 2011 - 01:31 AM, said:

Hey BobJam & Alpha - I did read through your initial response BobJam - I sped read through it, remember? However, your answer to that particular issue is in itself flawed - as is your explanation Alpha: MSA, for example, does not rate sites based solely on malware - other elements such as spam, reputation and ethics are taken into consideration. Here is a list of the things MSA looks for:
Downloads
E-mail Practices
Phishing Sites
E-Commerce Vulnerabilities
Website Annoyances

Even if we totally accept the premise that WOT's criteria is "MUCH more comprehensive" than the others - in the absence of any suitable explanation WOT is failing to differentiate between minor infractions and a major threats. e.g. [If WOT bases an Amber or Red rating on spam alone, is that a fair rating when it is not accompanied by any form of explanation?]

Anyway, we could continue going round in circles here ad nauseum...I'll simply agree to disagree.

Thanks guys, your input here is very much appreciated - even if you have found it difficult to penetrate one particular stubborn, old head.

Cheers and beers...Jim

[Claw]

See those two post over me?? I've read them three times and in my opinion,,Jims post is the only one that actually shows a list (proof) of what he is speaking about and like he said we could just keep going around in circles. To repeat the question,,,if WOT bases an Amber or Red rating on spam alone is that a fair rating when it is not accompanied by any form of explanation?? All he,,,we are asking is an answer to his question!!!!

[marko]

Think it's definitely time to draw this one to a close guys - in the interest's of our sanity I'll close this thread for now and will make a summary from some of the points raised here for Sami to respond to.   Thanks to everyone for their time on this thread, it's been an interesting journey to say the least

[marko]

Just a quick note to everyone on this thread - I've now sent off a handful of questions to WOT based on feedback and some questions raised here and on the other thread inviting questions for WOT.   Hopefully we'll see a response very shortly and I'll raise a new thread as and when the responses come in

[marko]

Responses from WOT can be found HERE.