{"id":818,"date":"2011-03-18T17:26:56","date_gmt":"2011-03-18T21:26:56","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/thundercloud.net\/infoave\/new\/?p=818"},"modified":"2011-03-18T17:26:56","modified_gmt":"2011-03-18T21:26:56","slug":"wot-needs-to-control-its-community","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.thundercloud.net\/infoave\/new\/wot-needs-to-control-its-community\/","title":{"rendered":"WOT needs to control its community"},"content":{"rendered":"

We’ve received a response from Deborah from Web of Trust (WOT) \t\t\t\tand she did give us some idea of how WOT arrives at its site \t\t\t\tratings. We will address her entire answer in a future \t\t\t\tnewsletter, but for now we will quote the part of her email \t\t\t\twhich deals with how WOT arrives at its ratings:<\/p>\n

“…As you remember, in addition to ratings from people, we also \t\t\t\tuse a number of trusted sources which include Verisign (sic), \t\t\t\tTRUSTe, GFI software, Panda Antivirus, OpenDNS, and many \t\t\t\tmore…” We are not sure why WOT uses these, many things we see \t\t\t\twould be a duplication of services, and we will touch upon each \t\t\t\tof these:<\/p>\n

1. VeriSign – is owned by Symantec (Norton) – and a site where \t\t\t\tdevelopers and websites themselves can pay a fee to get the \t\t\t\t“VeriSign” signature (trust seal), SSL Certificates and other \t\t\t\tthings a site needs for e-commerce and digital signatures for \t\t\t\tsoftware. So, we’re not sure why WOT uses VeriSign as it is not \t\t\t\ta site that maintains a database of dangerous sites.<\/p>\n

2. TRUSTe – TRUSTe does not keep or maintain a database of \t\t\t\tdangerous Web sites. It’s stated purpose has nothing to do with \t\t\t\tthe identification of dangerous sites. TRUSTe sells trust seals \t\t\t\tto Web sites which meet TRUSTe’s standards. And as far as TRUSTe \t\t\t\tgoes, we have found their standards lacking. If you’ve been \t\t\t\treading our newsletters for a few years then you will remember \t\t\t\twhen we pointed out how flawed TRUSTe’s trust seal program is. \t\t\t\tOne case in point: Many of you will remember that TRUSTe gave \t\t\t\tits seal of trust to Hotbar – at the very same time that \t\t\t\tHotbar’s spyware\/adware was ruining millions of computers and \t\t\t\tcompromising its users’ privacy. If you’d like to look back at \t\t\t\tthat you can read our article about TRUSTe and Hotbar here: \t\t\t\t http:\/\/thundercloud.net\/infoave\/truste-rant.htm<\/a><\/p>\n

3. GFI Software: While GFI does offer a program for home users \t\t\t\tto backup their computers, its main purpose is for small \t\t\t\tbusinesses. They offer products for backup, spam and mail \t\t\t\tsecurity, as well as provide server and hosting security.<\/p>\n

GFI Software’s purpose is not to warn surfers of dangerous \t\t\t\tsites; it does not maintain a database for this purpose. As stated \t\t\t\ton GFI’s Web site their mission is: “To provide the best \t\t\t\tquality, most cost-effective content and network security, and \t\t\t\tmessaging solutions to IT professionals in the small to medium \t\t\t\tsized business market, around the world.” What services GFI \t\t\t\tSoftware provides to WOT is vague. We don’t see any relationship \t\t\t\tbetween GFI’s stated mission and WOT’s mission.<\/p>\n

4. Panda Antivirus: WOT partnered with Panda years ago. Panda is \t\t\t\ta developer of security programs. They create consumer security \t\t\t\tsuites, and anti-virus programs to protect personal computers \t\t\t\tfrom viruses and other known threats. Since WOT does not include \t\t\t\tthe Panda security software in its toolbar, we’re not sure how \t\t\t\tWOT gets any site-rating data from a security software \t\t\t\tdeveloper. We don’t see how Panda’s security software is \t\t\t\trelevant to a safe-surfing toolbar whose purpose is to protect \t\t\t\tusers from dangerous Web sites.<\/p>\n

5. Open DNS: “OpenDNS services enable consumers and network \t\t\t\tadministrators to secure their networks from online threats, \t\t\t\treduce costs and enforce Internet-use policies.” Again, the \t\t\t\trelationship between OpenDNS and WOT is not clear.<\/p>\n

We are not sure how these sites contribute much, if anything, to \t\t\t\tWOT’s rating system. But WOT does note, they give a lot of \t\t\t\tweight to its community when developing their site ratings. This \t\t\t\tfollowing is copied directly from WOT’s Web site:<\/p>\n

“WOT ratings are powered by a global community of millions of \t\t\t\ttrustworthy users who have rated millions of websites based on \t\t\t\ttheir experiences.”<\/p>\n

We cannot tell how WOT transparently uses the above sources for \t\t\t\tits ratings, but we can say that after reviewing dozens of sites \t\t\t\tthat WOT has rated, all of the ratings are either good or bad \t\t\t\tbased on the comments and reviews of those leaving feedback \t\t\t\tabout those web sites in its community. Those so-called \t\t\t\t“trustworthy users” who rated and\/or commented on those sites, \t\t\t\tfrom what we can tell, almost always determine WOT’s Web site \t\t\t\tratings.<\/p>\n

WOT engages in a leap of logic calling its millions of members \t\t\t\t“trustworthy” considering the fact that to be one of these \t\t\t\ttrustworthy users all one has to do is provide is a name, an \t\t\t\temail address, chose a username and a password. One does not \t\t\t\thave to even have to provide a real name because WOT does not \t\t\t\tverify the identity or the backgrounds of their members. Because \t\t\t\tanyone with an email address can be a member of WOT’s community, \t\t\t\tWOT cannot with any credibility make the claim that even one of \t\t\t\tits members is trustworthy let alone that all of them are. \t\t\t\tSaying their ratings are “powered by a global community of \t\t\t\ttrustworthy users” is false. WOT cannot possibly substantiate \t\t\t\tthe claim that all of its members are trustworthy.<\/p>\n

After reviewing approximately one hundred Web sites rated by \t\t\t\tWOT, it appears to us that WOT’s community is the foundation of \t\t\t\tits rating system as well as foundation of its problems. Its \t\t\t\tcommunity may well have millions of members, but certainly not \t\t\t\tevery member is trustworthy. And WOT exacerbates the problem by \t\t\t\trewarding members who make the most comments and ratings. This system of rewarding the most active users \t\t\t\thas fueled a competition among some of its members, which seems \t\t\t\tto be out of control. Unfortunately this reward system is not \t\t\t\tbased on accuracy or relevance of comments, or even on actual \t\t\t\tpersonal experiences with the Web sites rated – WOT’s reward \t\t\t\tsystem is based solely on the number of ratings and comments a \t\t\t\tmember posts. This system skews WOT’s ratings by burying real \t\t\t\tratings of individuals who add their comments and ratings. For \t\t\t\tinstance, when we used to use WOT, we rated a few dozen Web \t\t\t\tsites – as would be typical of most users. Most users are not \t\t\t\tgoing to rate thousands of Web sites or make thousands and \t\t\t\tthousands of posts. Those members who carefully rate web sites \t\t\t\tbased on real experiences with those sites, are not going to \t\t\t\thave time to make thousands of post. But since WOT rewards those \t\t\t\twho make the most posts, there are some who seem motivated by \t\t\t\tthat. When that happens the race is on to see who can be the top \t\t\t\tposter and all kinds of bad things start happening. In the end \t\t\t\tthe legitimate users who carefully and accurately rate web sites \t\t\t\thave their posts and ratings buried.<\/p>\n

The following information was taken directly from WOT’s site.<\/p>\n

Here’s an example of one of WOT’s “trustworthy” members’ site \t\t\t\trating\/comment history:<\/p>\n

SuperHero58
\nPlatinum member
\nMember since May 2010
\nMy activity score:45,106 *My ratings:338,666 *My posts:365,772<\/p>\n

It is hard to imagine, a member who joined in May 2010 could \t\t\t\tpost 338,000+ site ratings based on his personal experience in \t\t\t\tless than 330 days (May 1, 2010 – March 17, 2011).<\/p>\n

We base this on information taken directly from WOT’s Web site \t\t\t\tThe WOT community member known as “SuperHero58” posted more than \t\t\t\t1000 posts per day on average from May 2010 through March 17, \t\t\t\t2011. That means if this person were using his computer for 10 \t\t\t\thours a day, every day, without a break, this person has been \t\t\t\tposting almost two posts per minute – every day, without a day \t\t\t\toff, since the day he joined WOT’s community. No human being is \t\t\t\tcapable of that, no one is capable of\u00a0 personally reviewing \t\t\t\tand rating that many Web sites based on their real experiences, \t\t\t\tin that short span of time.<\/p>\n

We’ve reviewed and rated hundreds of Web sites and freeware \t\t\t\tprograms for our newsletters over the past 10 years – and we can \t\t\t\ttell you it takes much longer than 30 seconds to review a site \t\t\t\tor product, let alone write a comment about it.<\/p>\n

Rather than rewarding this member of the community with a \t\t\t\tPlatinum Member award, WOT ought to be investigating him – and \t\t\t\tother members like him – because it is apparent to us that he is \t\t\t\tgaming and abusing WOT’s site rating system. WOT should be \t\t\t\tferreting these members who are manipulating and skewing WOT’s \t\t\t\trating system before they make a total mockery of WOT’s \t\t\t\tcommunity.<\/p>\n

The following “trustworthy members” are all reviewers of a site \t\t\t\twith which we are very familiar. They develop and distribute a \t\t\t\tproduct we’ve used and one we have endorsed after extensive \t\t\t\ttesting. We have often promoted this product and have received \t\t\t\texcellent feedback from users about the product as well as its \t\t\t\texcellent support team.<\/p>\n

However if someone who is a community member in the WOT \t\t\t\tcommunity does not like the program – one we find to be an excellent \t\t\t\tprogram – that’s perfectly fine; but because the program may \t\t\t\thave not worked for them, or they may have had a problem with \t\t\t\tthe program or the support team certainly does not make the site \t\t\t\t“dangerous”. WOT’s purpose is to protect users from dangerous \t\t\t\tWeb sites. Yet, there are numerous bad ratings for this site, \t\t\t\tcalling it everything from a phishing site, to a spam site – a \t\t\t\tWeb site cannot be spam because spam is defined as UCE or \t\t\t\tUnsolicited Commercial Email – to malware, spyware,\u00a0 a \t\t\t\tTrojan, and more. But it is absolutely none of these things. Yet \t\t\t\tWOT’s trusted members rate it as such with not a shred of \t\t\t\tevidence to back up their ratings. WOT gives this perfectly safe \t\t\t\tsite a red, Dangerous warning. Why? Because of a handful of “trustworthy members” who posted thousands of \t\t\t\tratings of and comments about sites which they couldn’t have \t\t\t\tpossibly seen or had any significant personal experience with.<\/p>\n

Here are some of these “trustworthy” members – note the join \t\t\t\tdates and the number of site ratings and comments. Also note the \t\t\t\tawards they were given by WOT. These particular members affected \t\t\t\tthe site of program we are discussing and appear to influence \t\t\t\tmany site ratings negatively. They also appear to follow each \t\t\t\tother around the community and post as a group.<\/p>\n

These figures were as of March 17, 2011:<\/p>\n

1. g7w Platinum member since Nov 2008
\nActivity score 54,374, My ratings:653,302 *My posts: 683,385
\nScambusters award 2009
\ntop member 2009
\ntop member 2010<\/p>\n

2. MassimilianoF
\nPlatinum member
\nMember since December 2009
\nMF IT-UESC – Protecting your Digital Experience. Now.
\nMy activity score:54,213 *My ratings:663,235 *My posts:683,173<\/p>\n

3. shazza
\nMember since November 2008
\nMy activity score:44,420 *My ratings:307,477 *My posts:307,678
\nPostal code:SC43 3EX
\n(received the 2010 WOT scam buster award)<\/p>\n

4. Figure.10
\nPlatinum member
\nMember since January 2010 (this is a 17 yr old)
\nMy activity score:27,739 *My ratings:55,325 *My posts:55,640<\/p>\n

5. Klaus_b
\nMember since April 2010
\nMy activity score:37,876 *My ratings:187,494 *My posts:185,896<\/p>\n

The above are just a few examples of WOT’s most active members. \t\t\t\tThere are more. The total overall negativity of WOT seems to be \t\t\t\taffected by such ambitious members as well:<\/p>\n

Total 11,978,443
\nPositive 581,629
\nNegative 11,179,634
\nNeutral 217,180<\/p>\n

It’s hard to believe that 75% of all web sites reviewed are bad. \t\t\t\tYet 75% of WOT’s community reviews are negative. WOT’s top 100 \t\t\t\tmembers have posted a large percentage of their nearly 12 \t\t\t\tmillion site ratings. That means that 100 people out of millions \t\t\t\tof community members have made nearly 30% of all the WOT’s site \t\t\t\tratings. WOT makes it sound like the ratings are being based on \t\t\t\tmillions of community members’ opinions when it appears the \t\t\t\tratings are actually influenced by very few.<\/span><\/p>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

Members rating thousands of sites and the overwhelming negativity \t\t\t\tof ratings, should be cause for alarm for WOT. Members who make \t\t\t\tthousands of comments and ratings should be \t\t\t\treviewed and if they are found to be using using automated posting \t\t\t\tscripts, or copying and pasting thousands of site ratings based \t\t\t\ton nothing more than hearsay or personal opinion – these members \t\t\t\tand their ratings should be removed from WOT’s community. WOT \t\t\t\tmembers who rate thousands of Web sites cannot \t\t\t\tpossibly base their ratings on personal experience. We’ve been \t\t\t\ton the Web for over 13 years and I seriously doubt that both of \t\t\t\tus together have seen a hundred thousand Web sites in that time.<\/p>\n

Rather than rewarding these members for making thousands of site ratings – which are supposed to be based on \t\t\t\tthe member’s own personal experience – with awards, WOT should \t\t\t\tbe shocked by these kinds of numbers and consider these kinds of \t\t\t\tpeople a grave threat to its credibility. This many posts by a \t\t\t\thandful of members not only skews WOT’s ratings, it makes the \t\t\t\taccuracy of WOT’s ratings questionable.<\/p>\n

Since we stopped recommending WOT, we’ve noticed a disturbing \t\t\t\ttrend – WOT is becoming a more of a censorship tool than a \t\t\t\tsafe-surfing toolbar. It’s hard to imagine that WOT would ever \t\t\t\twant to be involved in any kind of censorship or in making \t\t\t\tpolitical, religious or moral recommendations – yet that, in \t\t\t\tsome cases, is exactly what’s happening with WOT.<\/p>\n

Eightball and I have differing political views as do most \t\t\t\tpeople. And rating sites as “dangerous” because they express \t\t\t\textreme right-wing or left-wing views can be nothing other than \t\t\t\tcensorship. Nothing is more sacred to a free society than the \t\t\t\trights of its people to be able to express themselves as they \t\t\t\twish. And whether we find their opinions offensive, or vile, or \t\t\t\tcompletely contrary to what we believe, in a free society we \t\t\t\tmust believe they have the right to express themselves. WOT \t\t\t\tshould never let its toolbar to award a site with a green rating \t\t\t\tbecause a handful of WOT community members agree with the views \t\t\t\texpressed on that site – or punish a site with a red warning \t\t\t\tbecause its community disagrees with the views expressed. Not \t\t\t\tonly is this wrong but it has nothing to do with WOT’s mission \t\t\t\tto protect users from dangerous sites – i.e. fraudulent sites, \t\t\t\tscam sites, sites which distribute malware, and phishing sites, \t\t\t\tsites engaging in identity theft and the like.<\/p>\n

WOT’s financial model of selling its “trust badge” to web sites \t\t\t\tin order to fund itself is flawed. Selling trust badges to fund \t\t\t\titself is subject to abuse, and it puts WOT in a perilous \t\t\t\tposition where it can and will find itself in a conflict of \t\t\t\tinterest between its own financial interests and the interests \t\t\t\tof its users.<\/p>\n

WOT does need to find a way to make money, but selling badges of \t\t\t\ttrust isn’t the way to do it in our opinion. If WOT is as good \t\t\t\tand as popular as it thinks it is, it should be able to charge a \t\t\t\tsmall fee for its program – and ask its millions of members for \t\t\t\tsmall donations. If WOT truly is the most trusted “safe-surfing” \t\t\t\ttoolbar, as it claims, surely those who use it would be more \t\t\t\tthan happy to pay a small price for such a trusted program – \t\t\t\tmany may be willing to make a small donation to help fund Web of \t\t\t\tTrust.<\/p>\n

We disagree with much of WOT does. Does WOT really want to \t\t\t\tengage in the business of political censorship? Here’s just one \t\t\t\texample of how WOT is doing this:<\/p>\n

Below there are two sites – one far left-leaning and one far \t\t\t\tright-leaning:<\/p>\n

http:\/\/liberapedia.wikia.com\/wiki\/Main_Page<\/a> Green WOT \t\t\t\tRating (Ultra-liberal site)<\/p>\n

http:\/\/www.conservapedia.com\/Main_Page<\/a> Red WOT Warning \t\t\t\t(Ultra-conservative site)<\/p>\n

WOT gives the American Nazi Party’s official site a “red” \t\t\t\t(dangerous) rating (right leaning), but gives the American \t\t\t\tCommunist Party’s site a green (safe) rating (left leaning).<\/p>\n

We’re not condoning, supporting, or encouraging either right or \t\t\t\tleft, Nazi or Communist – we’re showing these examples to make a \t\t\t\tpoint: Does a safe-surfing toolbar have any business favoring \t\t\t\tany political agenda over another? Is a site dangerous because \t\t\t\tit espouses a set of beliefs or values we may find offensive? Do \t\t\t\twe really want to have a toolbar censor sites for us based on \t\t\t\tany moral, political or religious considerations?<\/p>\n

America, and all free societies disdain censorship. Free \t\t\t\tsocieties are founded on freedom of expression, and those of us \t\t\t\twho live in free societies understand that while we may not \t\t\t\tagree with someone else’s political, or religious or moral \t\t\t\tbeliefs, we must defend their right to express them. WOT is \t\t\t\tsliding down the slippery slope of censorship by allowing its \t\t\t\ttoolbar to become a powerful tool in the hands of a few who seem \t\t\t\tto impose their beliefs on everyone.<\/p>\n

Additionally, you can find sites promoting religious beliefs \t\t\t\twhich are contrary to the beliefs of those held by the reviewers \t\t\t\t– and those sites are rated red by WOT.<\/p>\n

WOT has lost its way. WOT’s purpose should not be to constrain \t\t\t\tfreedom of expression. WOT’s only purpose should be to protect \t\t\t\tits users from dangerous Web sites – malware sites, spyware \t\t\t\tsites, infected sites, sites which are set up for the purpose of \t\t\t\tstealing personal information, scam sites, fishing sites and \t\t\t\tother sites which may cause harm to our computers or our \t\t\t\tprivacy. WOT steps over the line when it becomes a toolbar of \t\t\t\tmoral, philosophical, religious, or political censorship.<\/p>\n

If any one person’s freedoms are constrained, then all our \t\t\t\tfreedoms are constrained. WOT has no business forcing its, or \t\t\t\tits community’s moral, political or religious opinions on \t\t\t\tanyone.<\/p>\n

As long as WOT’s ratings are skewed by a handful of members who \t\t\t\tpost millions of site ratings – ratings and comments which \t\t\t\tcannot possibly be based on those members’ personal experience – \t\t\t\tWOT’s ratings will continue to be subjective, biased, arbitrary \t\t\t\tand untrustworthy. In the end WOT’s users will suffer from this \t\t\t\tabuse, and unfortunately will many legitimate and useful Web \t\t\t\tsites and small Web businesses.<\/p>\n

If WOT truly wants to protect its users from dangerous content, \t\t\t\tit needs to clean up its own house first. WOT should start \t\t\t\tsupervising its community and identify and weed out those \t\t\t\tindividuals who make thousands of posts. WOT needs \t\t\t\tto move away from making moral and political and religious \t\t\t\tjudgments part of its rating system. Moral, political, and \t\t\t\treligious opinions are only dangerous to those who oppose them, \t\t\t\tand therefore WOT has no business giving red (dangerous ratings) \t\t\t\tto sites with political, moral, or religious opinions that \t\t\t\toffend its “trustworthy” community members – especially the ones \t\t\t\tmaking thousands of questionable ratings and \t\t\t\tposts. <\/span><\/p>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

WOT needs to regain control of its community and set-up strict \t\t\t\tguidelines and initiate a stringent policy which prohibits abuse \t\t\t\tof its rating system by a minority who make thousands of posts which couldn’t possibly be based on any \t\t\t\tpersonal experience. It should carefully review ratings and \t\t\t\tcomments made by its members. Right now a few people are skewing \t\t\t\tWOT’s ratings and these members appear to be out of control. \t\t\t\tThey are make a mockery of WOT and its rating system. “WOT \t\t\t\tratings are powered by a global community of millions of \t\t\t\ttrustworthy users who have rated millions of websites based on \t\t\t\ttheir experiences. ”<\/p>\n

WOT needs to ensure that its community members are really \t\t\t\ttrustworthy not allow automated bots or scripts or users who \t\t\t\tcopy and paste the same ratings and comments to thousands of posts to win awards, or be recognized or gain \t\t\t\tattention.<\/p>\n

We don’t see the need for a WOT-style toolbar in any case. All \t\t\t\tcurrent-version browsers have anti-phishing and fraudulent site \t\t\t\tprotection – and by now everyone who uses the Internet should \t\t\t\thave good security software installed to protect them from \t\t\t\tviruses, worms, Trojans, spyware, malware, botnets, and other \t\t\t\tmalicious files.<\/p>\n

We don’t need, and we shouldn’t want, a morality toolbar driven \t\t\t\tby a handful of anonymous but supposedly “trustworthy” WOT \t\t\t\tcommunity members to tell us what to think.<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

We’ve received a response from Deborah from Web of Trust (WOT) and she did give us some idea of how WOT arrives at its site ratings. We will address her entire answer in a future newsletter, but for now we will quote the part of her email which deals with how WOT arrives at its ratings: “…As you\u2026 Read More »<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[10],"tags":[442,599,596,598,597,600,268,23],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.thundercloud.net\/infoave\/new\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/818"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.thundercloud.net\/infoave\/new\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.thundercloud.net\/infoave\/new\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.thundercloud.net\/infoave\/new\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.thundercloud.net\/infoave\/new\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=818"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/www.thundercloud.net\/infoave\/new\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/818\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":820,"href":"https:\/\/www.thundercloud.net\/infoave\/new\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/818\/revisions\/820"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.thundercloud.net\/infoave\/new\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=818"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.thundercloud.net\/infoave\/new\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=818"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.thundercloud.net\/infoave\/new\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=818"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}