Re: [OT] [OT] Re: WOT
|
View:
New views
4 Messages
—
Rating Filter:
Alert me
|
 |
|
|
|
Re: [OT] [OT] Re: WOT
by Bob Jamieson-2
::
Rate this Message:
Daddy wrote, On 10/29/2009 01:41 PM:
> squaredancer wrote: >> On 29.10.2009 16:50, CET - what odd quirk of fate caused Bob Jamieson >> to generate the following:? : >>> kes wrote, On 10/29/2009 01:01 AM: >>> >>>> Menno Hershberger wrote: >>>> >>>>> This probably isn't the right place for this, but since I have WOT >>>>> installed in Firefox... here goes. >>>>> I am a signed up member in WOT. I have done business with >>>>> moonvalleysoft.com. However it has the following WOT rating: >>>>> http://www.mywot.com/en/scorecard/moonvalleysoft.com >>>>> How can it have less than a perfect rating if no one has made any >>>>> comments on it. There is no explanation on the page as to how they >>>>> came up with the ratings. I have made a purchase from >>>>> moonvalleysoft and am very pleased with the product and with the >>>>> technical support they provided me. I can "edit my rating" but it >>>>> doesn't seem to change anything. It states that I can make a >>>>> comment but that it won't affect the rating. Why not and how the >>>>> hell did they come up with the rating in the first place? >>>>> >>>>> >>>> Hi, a better place for your comments/enquiries would be here: >>>> http://www.mywot.com/en/forum >>>> >>>> Your rating of the site is one of many -- it is the aggregate you are >>>> seeing. 'No one has made any comments' does not mean 'no one has scored >>>> the site yet'. I see that it has been rated for Trustworthiness (49) >>>> and >>>> Vendor Relaibility (54). The numbers suggest that more than one persons >>>> /have/ voted already. >>>> >>> >>> Yes, kes is correct . . . the better place for your question is the >>> WOT forum. >>> >>> As far as "comments" go, a rater is not compelled to make a comment >>> along with a rating, and many don't. "Comments" are optional, and >>> most often are made by people that feel strongly one way or the other. >>> >>> For example, you can rate it green and then leave a comment about why >>> you did (that stuff about you being satisfied with your order), since >>> you seem to feel strongly about that. >>> >>> Many sites that have green ratings have a lot of red comments, and >>> sites that have a red rating have green comments. COMMENTS ARE NOT >>> RATINGS, but a lot of people get confused when they see green >>> comments on a red rated site or vice-versa. >>> >>> To expand on what kes said about your rating being one of many . . . >>> rating "weight" is made (an algorithm) based on the raters history of >>> reliability. Consequently, if you're a new rater, your rating >>> doesn't carry as much weight as a rater who has a lengthy history of >>> "reliable" ratings. >>> >>> For example, I've rated over 3000 sites "reliably" ("reliably" >>> meaning that my ratings have generally been in line with the majority >>> - WOT is a "meritocracy"). Therefore, my ratings count heavier than >>> a rating would for someone with, say, 100 ratings. I have a better >>> chance of swinging a score with my rating than a relative noob. >>> >>> OK . . . I've gone on much too long on a newsgroup here dedicated to >>> Firefox, so this is plenty off topic for this newsgroup. >>> >>> To repeat, post your question on the WOT forum. >>> >>> BJ >>> >>> >> Bob will now stop ranting about ratings and will not further rate >> rantings..... >> I think that that is the order of things... *lol* >> >> reg >> fu to moz.gen, where rantings are in order and may even be rated. >> > In other words, you routed the rantings to where they may be rated, right? > > Daddy Geeezzzz . . . dare I rant about this thread? (You started this, reg) BJ -- Bob Jamieson Remove the "no spam" before replying via email _______________________________________________ general mailing list general@... https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general |
|
|
Re: [OT] [OT] Re: WOT
by squaredancer
::
Rate this Message:
On 29.10.2009 21:41, CET - what odd quirk of fate caused Daddy to
generate the following:? : > squaredancer wrote: > >> On 29.10.2009 16:50, CET - what odd quirk of fate caused Bob Jamieson >> to generate the following:? : >> >>> kes wrote, On 10/29/2009 01:01 AM: >>> >>> >>>> Menno Hershberger wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>> This probably isn't the right place for this, but since I have WOT >>>>> installed in Firefox... here goes. >>>>> I am a signed up member in WOT. I have done business with >>>>> moonvalleysoft.com. However it has the following WOT rating: >>>>> http://www.mywot.com/en/scorecard/moonvalleysoft.com >>>>> How can it have less than a perfect rating if no one has made any >>>>> comments on it. There is no explanation on the page as to how they >>>>> came up with the ratings. I have made a purchase from moonvalleysoft >>>>> and am very pleased with the product and with the technical support >>>>> they provided me. I can "edit my rating" but it doesn't seem to >>>>> change anything. It states that I can make a comment but that it >>>>> won't affect the rating. Why not and how the hell did they come up >>>>> with the rating in the first place? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> Hi, a better place for your comments/enquiries would be here: >>>> http://www.mywot.com/en/forum >>>> >>>> Your rating of the site is one of many -- it is the aggregate you are >>>> seeing. 'No one has made any comments' does not mean 'no one has scored >>>> the site yet'. I see that it has been rated for Trustworthiness (49) and >>>> Vendor Relaibility (54). The numbers suggest that more than one persons >>>> /have/ voted already. >>>> >>>> >>> Yes, kes is correct . . . the better place for your question is the >>> WOT forum. >>> >>> As far as "comments" go, a rater is not compelled to make a comment >>> along with a rating, and many don't. "Comments" are optional, and >>> most often are made by people that feel strongly one way or the other. >>> >>> For example, you can rate it green and then leave a comment about why >>> you did (that stuff about you being satisfied with your order), since >>> you seem to feel strongly about that. >>> >>> Many sites that have green ratings have a lot of red comments, and >>> sites that have a red rating have green comments. COMMENTS ARE NOT >>> RATINGS, but a lot of people get confused when they see green comments >>> on a red rated site or vice-versa. >>> >>> To expand on what kes said about your rating being one of many . . . >>> rating "weight" is made (an algorithm) based on the raters history of >>> reliability. Consequently, if you're a new rater, your rating doesn't >>> carry as much weight as a rater who has a lengthy history of >>> "reliable" ratings. >>> >>> For example, I've rated over 3000 sites "reliably" ("reliably" meaning >>> that my ratings have generally been in line with the majority - WOT is >>> a "meritocracy"). Therefore, my ratings count heavier than a rating >>> would for someone with, say, 100 ratings. I have a better chance of >>> swinging a score with my rating than a relative noob. >>> >>> OK . . . I've gone on much too long on a newsgroup here dedicated to >>> Firefox, so this is plenty off topic for this newsgroup. >>> >>> To repeat, post your question on the WOT forum. >>> >>> BJ >>> >>> >>> >> Bob will now stop ranting about ratings and will not further rate >> rantings..... >> I think that that is the order of things... *lol* >> >> reg >> fu to moz.gen, where rantings are in order and may even be rated. >> >> > In other words, you routed the rantings to where they may be rated, right? > > Daddy > RE-routed them, to be more accurate.... reg _______________________________________________ general mailing list general@... https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general |
|
|
Re: [OT] [OT] Re: WOT
by squaredancer
::
Rate this Message:
On 30.10.2009 19:16, CET - what odd quirk of fate caused Bob Jamieson
to generate the following:? : > Daddy wrote, On 10/29/2009 01:41 PM: > >> squaredancer wrote: >> >>> On 29.10.2009 16:50, CET - what odd quirk of fate caused Bob Jamieson >>> to generate the following:? : >>> >>>> kes wrote, On 10/29/2009 01:01 AM: >>>> >>>> >>>>> Menno Hershberger wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> This probably isn't the right place for this, but since I have WOT >>>>>> installed in Firefox... here goes. >>>>>> I am a signed up member in WOT. I have done business with >>>>>> moonvalleysoft.com. However it has the following WOT rating: >>>>>> http://www.mywot.com/en/scorecard/moonvalleysoft.com >>>>>> How can it have less than a perfect rating if no one has made any >>>>>> comments on it. There is no explanation on the page as to how they >>>>>> came up with the ratings. I have made a purchase from >>>>>> moonvalleysoft and am very pleased with the product and with the >>>>>> technical support they provided me. I can "edit my rating" but it >>>>>> doesn't seem to change anything. It states that I can make a >>>>>> comment but that it won't affect the rating. Why not and how the >>>>>> hell did they come up with the rating in the first place? >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> Hi, a better place for your comments/enquiries would be here: >>>>> http://www.mywot.com/en/forum >>>>> >>>>> Your rating of the site is one of many -- it is the aggregate you are >>>>> seeing. 'No one has made any comments' does not mean 'no one has scored >>>>> the site yet'. I see that it has been rated for Trustworthiness (49) >>>>> and >>>>> Vendor Relaibility (54). The numbers suggest that more than one persons >>>>> /have/ voted already. >>>>> >>>>> >>>> Yes, kes is correct . . . the better place for your question is the >>>> WOT forum. >>>> >>>> As far as "comments" go, a rater is not compelled to make a comment >>>> along with a rating, and many don't. "Comments" are optional, and >>>> most often are made by people that feel strongly one way or the other. >>>> >>>> For example, you can rate it green and then leave a comment about why >>>> you did (that stuff about you being satisfied with your order), since >>>> you seem to feel strongly about that. >>>> >>>> Many sites that have green ratings have a lot of red comments, and >>>> sites that have a red rating have green comments. COMMENTS ARE NOT >>>> RATINGS, but a lot of people get confused when they see green >>>> comments on a red rated site or vice-versa. >>>> >>>> To expand on what kes said about your rating being one of many . . . >>>> rating "weight" is made (an algorithm) based on the raters history of >>>> reliability. Consequently, if you're a new rater, your rating >>>> doesn't carry as much weight as a rater who has a lengthy history of >>>> "reliable" ratings. >>>> >>>> For example, I've rated over 3000 sites "reliably" ("reliably" >>>> meaning that my ratings have generally been in line with the majority >>>> - WOT is a "meritocracy"). Therefore, my ratings count heavier than >>>> a rating would for someone with, say, 100 ratings. I have a better >>>> chance of swinging a score with my rating than a relative noob. >>>> >>>> OK . . . I've gone on much too long on a newsgroup here dedicated to >>>> Firefox, so this is plenty off topic for this newsgroup. >>>> >>>> To repeat, post your question on the WOT forum. >>>> >>>> BJ >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> Bob will now stop ranting about ratings and will not further rate >>> rantings..... >>> I think that that is the order of things... *lol* >>> >>> reg >>> fu to moz.gen, where rantings are in order and may even be rated. >>> >>> >> In other words, you routed the rantings to where they may be rated, right? >> >> Daddy >> > > Geeezzzz . . . dare I rant about this thread? (You started this, reg) > > BJ > > as long as you don't try to send a rated SCREENSHOT, but you may prefer to use our fellow server (on secnews), which allows the use of multi-media. Multi-Coloured rants are very "en mode". reg _______________________________________________ general mailing list general@... https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general |
| Free embeddable forum powered by Nabble | Forum Help |
