Web Of Trust (WOT) is an Internet service which provides people useful information about dishonest vendors. Users install a plugin to their browser, and a window will pop up if they go to a site with a bad reputation for commerce, pornography etc. It has saved me several times from bad business dealings.
I was dismayed when I went to my site this afternoon and WOT popped up with a warning that the site is “dishonest.”
Someone named “crumbinator” is abusing this important service. If every idiot tried to resolve their disagreements through censorship, the world would be like – say the Soviet Union.
This is a free America and a free world for goodness sake. If you can’t debate intelligently, censorship is a last resort of fools and scoundrels. I don’t censor, and everyone has the right to come here and debate – if they are up to it.
Thanks for this. I never even heard of it.
Censor? People are not able to view your misrepresentations because I pointed out that you are dishonest?
It’s a “free America and a free world” except for my opinion about your dishonesty.
OK there, triple point…
WOT actually blocks the site and pops up a large warning screen. Your behaviour is reprehensible, and it is even more disturbing that you don’t understand why.
Debating is fine. Dirty tricks are for losers. Not only are you degrading the scientific debate, but you are degrading the purpose of WOT. It was not intended as a way to censor other points of view.
I’m not censoring anything… I provided my feedback to the site. That’s how it works. The warning likely appears because mine is one of the only ratings for your blog so far. Once enough of your supporters provided positive ratings, it should disappear.
Like I said, the really sad thing is that you don’t realize how reprehensible your behaviour is. It is a standard tactic of leftist goons to shout people down and stifle debate any way that they can.
Yeah, rating a web site on a web site rating service is completely reprehensible. If WOT is displaying a warning to its users about your site based on only my vote, then your problem is with WOT, not me. If WOT is displaying a warning to its users about your site based on many negative votes then your problem is, again, not with me.
The purpose of WOT is not to provide a censorship tool for Romm’s goons – or any other gang activity.
Free speech and debate requires openness like I provide for you on this site. If you have a scientific argument then make it. Apparently you are not up to the task, so you violate the spirit of open debate.
I have little doubt you will remain in denial about how reprehensible your behaviour is, and will continue to come up with pathetic justifications for it.
Again, I didn’t censor anything. All I did was rate the honesty of the site site. One vote and now I’m a goon?
Name calling certainly helps your case here.
“It is a standard tactic of leftist goons to shout people down and stifle debate any way that they can.”
Errr… You’re the one who devoted an entire blog post about one person’s vote on WOT. Seriously.
Perhaps you didn’t understand that you were actually blocking new visitors from getting to the site. If that is the case, then you are excused.
Steve, I am not blocking anybody from doing anything. WOT is displaying a warning to its users. It would be interesting to see if they are doing that based on just ONE negative vote, but the site appears to be short on stats. I’d certainly abandon the service (and hey, I’d even reverse my negative ratings before I quit, since they would’d be used correctly) if I found out it was flawed in such a manner.
Crumbinator, you are a goon. But worse, you have converted WOT into your private censorship service. Such massive arrogance is the last resort of scoundrels. But we are wasting our time on you. You have not the slightest notion what honesty is.
Name calling again. I am not a goon. I am not being arrogant. I made a vote on a voting system. You can do the same thing. You’re being ridiculous.
You also have the right to attend a speech or debate and shout the person on stage down. Lefties do it all the time.
The fact that someone has the right to do it in a free society makes it no less reprehensible.
“You also have the right to attend a speech or debate and shout the person on stage down. Lefties do it all the time.”
So do “righties”…
The fact that someone has the right to do it in a free society makes it no less reprehensible.
I did not shout anybody down. I submitted a vote on a voting system. You devoted an entire blog post to the fact that “crumbinator” disagreed with you. You’re doing the shouting here.
What part of “you are blocking other people from the site” is it that you don’t understand?
What part of “I am not blocking anybody from your site” don’t you understand?
Your position is that any WOT is a great system, but that people must refrain from voting if they do not have a positive opinion about what you post on the internet. If they do not refrain from posting, they are leftist goons. Having a difference of opinion with Steven Goddard and expressing that you do publicly is reprehensible.
Are you asking me to change my vote? Do you think it will make a difference? Is WOT warning its users based on only one vote? I might have been willing to experiment with that before, but the apoplexy of the responses (to a SINGLE VOTE) are a real turn-off.
My vote stands. Feel free to continue trying to shout me down.
The only person blocking access to your comments is you.
Right. Except I’m not blocking anybody. In fact, I asked a friend to create a new WOT account and visit your site. Not blocked. No warning. No problem. You’re freaking out about nothing. Ridiculous.
Crumbinator
Okay, we get that you do not like Mr. Goddard’s site. You are certainly welcome to your opinion; however, if the purpose of the WOT site is to alert the public about dishonest sites, why is there not one word in your comments about what is dishonest?
Mr. Goddard has stated repeatedly that anyone is welcome for honest debate, “if they are up to it.” I, for one would love for you and Mr. Goddard to match wits on the issue of global warming, not on how much you dislike him or his site. Then we would be able to better judge the honesty of both of you.
Let the debate begin.
Mike Patrick
I have read this post a couple of times now – I guess I’m hoping the instance of deliberate dishonesty Mr. Goddard was accused of will surface. I have followed Mr. Goddard on other blogs and read this one and I just can’t connect dishonesty and Goddard and come up with anything.
Mike and Greg,
thank you for being more eloquent than I in this matter. I have posted to WoT my feelings about this “debate” and rate Steve’s site as Good.
Cheers,
And thank you,
Dan
LetsGoViking (Viking is a VERB!)
Crumbinator
I’m somewhat new to debate about CAGW and I’m trying to get hold of it
Could you please provide examples of alleged dishonesty of this site and also WUWT
( you have rated it exactly same way) without any examples of alleged dishonesty.
Thanks in advance
It is to be expected that one’s site receives dishonest ratings in WOT. That’s not something to be surprised about. I think it’s best to shrug and realise that dishonest ratings are normally corrected if one gets enough votes.
The following is a quote from the Web of Trust FAQ:
http://www.mywot.com/en/support/faq#rating
“The first component reflects the overall trustworthiness of the site: Can it be trusted? Is it safe to use? Does it deliver what it promises? A poor rating may indicate Internet scams, identity theft risks, credit card fraud, phishing, viruses, adware or spyware. A rating of “unsatisfactory” indicates that the site may contain annoying advertisements, excessive pop-ups or content that makes your browser crash.
Vendor reliability tells you whether the site is safe for buying and selling or for business transactions in general. An “excellent” rating indicates superior customer service, timely delivery of products or services and overall customer satisfaction. A “poor” rating indicates a possible scam or a bad shopping experience.
Privacy tells you whether the site has a privacy policy that protects your personal identity and data. For example, does the social networking service you use give you the means to determine what is public and what remains private? Does the site have opt-in privacy options? A “poor” rating indicates concern that your data may be sold to third parties, be stored indefinitely or be turned over to law enforcement without a warrant, etc.
Child safety indicates if the site contains age-inappropriate material. This includes mature content meant for adults: Content depicting nudity, sexual content, violence, vulgar or hateful language or content that encourages dangerous or illegal activities.”
From the above descriptions it becomes clear that this blog indeed deserves RED ALERTS… j/k 😉
I am confused; so anyone who does not give you a glowing approval is infringing on your free speech?
Get a grip matey, unless you want an internet where only people who think you are the bees knees are permitted to comment.
Having installed this application its a load of rubbish that only tells you how popular something is. Disguising this a accuracy is tosh. Anyone who uses this to guage the a web page deserves the quality they will recieve.
Looks like you didn’t read the article and skipped straight to the comments section.
Disguising this a accuracy is tosh
= = = == = = = = = = =
Ignore this line, meaningless. I as trying to say “distinguishing this as accuracy” but even then the point is hollow.
Out of curiosity, really. How come there are so many people with fingers much faster then a brain. What do they do for living ? Any idea ?
Looks like you didn’t read the article and skipped straight to the comments section.
= = = = = = = = = = = =
Fair enough, what did I miss out?
I don’t mind criticism. I do mind when my site is blocked.
Crumbinator is a good little Bundist. just like the left all over the place, your right to free speech stops when you disagree with him. Notice he has no link to his own site. He is afraid that someone will do to him what he does. Why? They only think in terms of slime and cannot understand the concept of honest disagreement.