View this page "A Study In Red"

[phantazm]

Hi, I've added a general essay on 'Degrees of danger', Feel free to
edit...

[KD]

It is a good idea, though if it was implemented I would suggest it be
done through an 'advanced' options setting in WOT. What I like about
WOT is that I can quickly rate a site and for most 'end-users' that is
the key advantage. Nice and simple GUI. For more advanced users the
above could be very useful and obviously of benefit to the wider WOT
community.

Good work, well done!

[phantazm]

I agree: there should be a simple, intuitive version for newbies. But
also one for more experienced users...

[cooldude3659]

Hi Phantazm and KD,
I'm very sorry for the slightly delayed response, I've been fairly
busy lately...

Continuing on, I really like your ideas! They go great together. My
only concern: Five sub sections just of red seems a bit excessive. I
think, however we could work them in in other ways:

Born to be Viral-obviously just red

Local scams-I'm not sure if there's a way to implement this one,
however it can be mentioned in comments. Perhaps have a warning on
green websites that some comments say this website is malicious. Then
again, many more comments would have to be disagreed upon so that safe
websites such as microsoft that have comments calling it malicious
aren't shown..

Transient Scams-In the main WOT forum, I suggested a button to report
a website that had been hacked. Although, you can already do this
through the WOT website as well. Still, a button within the add-on
would be easy to find, and would go along with transient scams.

New Domain, new owner-I love your idea of a "revert alert" and I think
that would be a great thing to implement into WOT.

Legal Deception-Perhaps usefulness or something related to that could
be an optional category of WOT. Perhaps through KD's advanced system.
Another way could be to scan the page for number of ads, and display
that in the pop-up window as well.

Thanks again for your ideas. I really do like them. I just think that
dividing red into several sections might be difficult to put on an
understandable linear scale.

[phantazm]

"I just think that dividing red into several sections might be
difficult to put on an understandable linear scale."

Well, I didn't think these categories should be different points on a
linear scale; they are logically different and can't be reduced to
different points on the same line. Rather they are different aspects
of the red category. However, each kind of 'red' need it's own
individual approach, and that's why I wanted to eleborate their
different nature.

But I admit that I perhaps invited the confusion myself, by ordering
them from 'worst red' to 'slightly red'. However, that order is more
about the possible consequences, not their different ways of
existence.

Anyway, if the list should be simplified, I'll suggest that the 'legal
deception' category might be omitted, as a borderline case.

[queo...@gmail.com]

Hey phantazm !!
I think you would be making it too difficult. One for new members and
another for the less new. That would require a too much learning and
might drive away new members. The easier to understand, the less the
learning curve the more people you would attract. I joined because I
like to help but also because it was simple to use. What I have been
trying to get people in general to do is , Leave a message and not
just a Gray dot so people can actually see the experience others had.
This , I think , would greatly improve the reliability of the score
card. What do you think of my rant ?
Athlonite.

[phantazm]

Hi, I've corrected a few minor errors, and added some practical
suggestions...

Regards phantazm

[KD]

Carrying on from the suggestion of including an advanced type and
building on the specified threats that have been identified, what if
the advanced tab just added an extra "bar" in the GUI that allows the
user to select the seriousness of this threat and then they must
specify the threat from a selection of options once they have selected
the level of threat. This would be a sort of "express" way to
highlight threats that advanced users could just go 'click & click &
type some info' and then done. It would not be too intimidating for
end-users like myself while the 'advanced' option would keep away
novice users until they got more used to identifying and allocating
issues. In the advanced option though you would 'have to' define the
threat very specifically (like has been done in the original idea).
This should deter frivolous use of the tool.

[cooldude3659]

I made a few minor changes, along with the addition of the "Hidden
Details" category. Leave your thoughts

[seattlejohn]

Great idea: Reporting a site that has been hacked...BUT it should also
include an e-mail to the site mgr...to make sure he knows that his
site has been hacked, AND that a rating group now knows that his site
is UNSAFE, and being reported as such. There should, obviously, be a
way to retract the the poor ratings once the site has been cleaned up
(ONLY if done timely!). I once reported to an Admin that his site had
been hacked, we exchanged half a dozen e-mails over two days, and 3
months later, his site was still being black-balled by Firefox! He
was NOT making a sincere effort to clean up his site, and therefore
would not qualify for a retraction of "red" ratings. We cannot
condemn a site forever for having been hacked, but if the Admin fails
to respond in a timely manner, then forgiveness should also have to
pass 'the-test-of-time'.


On Jan 23, 4:19 pm, cooldude3659 <wehaveitall.netwebmas...@gmail.com>
wrote: