Our My WoT rating
My Web of Trust Truspilot.com rating: here.
WoT is an internet censorship tool, which facilitates the acquisition of user data – or, phishing – through anonymous users demanding details from websites fallen prey to a rating system arbitrated by the most powerful bullies. If you use the tool, you are potentially enabling hundreds of users to demand personal and business information, holding a sites rating (which doesn’t reflect the actual content or safety of the site) to ransom. At PCGMedia.com, we consider this blackmail. Needless to say, our opinion of www.mywot.com perpetuates our score. Should it? No. Does it? Yes. Therein lies the problem.
Since user “Kraftwerk” has started his vendetta, we have discovered that he is in fact Daniel Reisenberger, who ‘liked’ our post on this matter in order to antagonize us further. He, like many of WoT’s most weighted users, is just a child.
Here is proof that MyWOT itself facilitates the mining and distribution of personal public information, which is against the law. I ask you to also refer to this article here, which explains one user, “Shazza”, and talks about the trustworthiness of their users.
The two images below depict services by people who charge to increase or decrease MyWOT ratings for sites at a price. These images are found on affhelper.com who further expose the truth about MyWOT.
The only way to over-turn the rating on www.mywot.com is to “ask the community nicely.” We have approached the community and disclosed the following information:
- Domain registration in my name: http://i.imgur.com/yFfhEgV.jpg
- Myself: http://www.linkedin.com/pub/michael-cromwell/59/39 …
- Our team page: http://pcgmedia.com/the-pcgmedia-team/ (note myself)
- TOS: http://pcgmedia.com/aboutterms-of-service/
- Contact: http://pcgmedia.com/contact-us/
- WhoIS: http://whois.domaintools.com/pcgmedia.com
The community refuse to change their decision. Rating sites is a game to this community, who strive to rack up the highest score. A select few deliver misinformation in a deliberate attempt to antagonize, annoy, and ruin people’s reputations. Despite offering all the correct information, users like this one send private messages trying to spark a “flame war”, including racist comments such as claiming that US “guys” are “pretty ignorant”, which is of course absolutely nothing to do with www.pcgmedia.com’s content.
MyWOT claim zero responsibility over user ratings, despite their ratings often being based on fallacious interpretations of the law, or “opinion” (for instance, in my opinion X is illegal) when of course law is regional, and not up for debate. MyWOT admit that they do not moderate or fact check anything, and it’s all up to the community – who I have exhibited here.
In other words, MyWOT dictates that the following propositional statement is valid: “In my opinion, a lamb is a baby cat.” No system on earth would attribute trustworthiness to absolutely false statements. MyWOT user trust is dictated by an abused algorithm, not the content or validity of a users actions.
One user, C0g, is attributing empty domains (ostensibly gathered to sell) to www.pcgmedia.com. These domains are owned by a Mr Shane [surname removed], and not owned by myself, Michael Cromwell. They therefore have absolutely nothing to do with www.pcgmedia.com or the sites content. For more information on the sites three most notorious mass-raters, look at this article which explains how a user was able to ask users c0g, Shazza, and superhero28 to down-rate a site on a whim.
In order to even have a chance of appeasing their request, I necessarily have to submit all of my personal details to a collective of anonymous users, including my home address, phone number, name, and other information. www.pcgmedia.com fails to see “trust” in being blackmailed to hand over personal details to anonymous users.
It has come to our attention that incredibly flawed internet reputation aggregate site MyWOT is giving www.PCGMEDIA.com the lowest possible reputation rating.
If you have installed the MyWOT plugin for either Fire Fox or Chrome, and are worried about the content on this site, let us explain why they’re giving us fallacious results:
MyWOT publishes ‘site trustworthiness ratings’ based on user reports. These reports are not statistical, or appropriated through aggregate sourcing. They are based of as many as one single report. Through the comments of users, given an opportunity to select different aspects of the sites trustworthiness, the site is then given a reputation score.
The important thing to note is that MyWOT do not intervene or fact check anything. That means that users claims can be as wildly outlandish, or false, as they want. WOT advise us that the only way to remove a user comment is to “ask them nicely” to review their comments.
What we’re being accused of
The two comments which accuse PCGMedia of phishing, unsubstantiated, of course, derive their facts through our advertising relationship with www.onlinekeystore.com. They have, essentially, attributed ownership of PCGMedia to OnlineKeyStore, thus reproducing the OnlineKeyStore reputation rating on PCGMedia’s MyWOT page.
We trade advertising space with OnlineKeyStore for hosting of our site – a site which provides content, and is unable to collect any user data. It’s as simple as that. 100% of content of the site is provided by the PCGMedia team, and no one else.
Our advertising policy/agreement is on the grounds that the phishing accusations proposed by these anonymous users are unfounded. OnlineKeyStore.com has never been investigated for data mining, or phishing – and, in fact, has never been accused of it by a national or international body of law. They have neither been accused, charged, investigated for, or proven to be involved in phishing.
In short, PCGMedia are, by extension, being accused of phishing because two people fallaciously believe OnlineKeyStore “owns” the site (which is non-profit, and not monetized), when our relationship is merely an advertising agreement. What they are being accused of has not been proved true, and we therefore have no reason – and, actually, cannot legally – abolish our relationship with them.
Please rate us accurately here.
On rating positively and community interaction
This is one of the more reasonable MyWOT users discussing our site, which is why it’s the most interesting:
1) The community constantly refer to Shane, even though he isn’t the site owner. I’m taking part in the discussion, yet the community aim the anger and comments towards a third party which isn’t involved.
2) Note her apathy towards her own community. The community are put off rating positively because it might affect their trustworthiness and rating pattern, because it “would not be enough to change” the score, so there’s no point.
3) The user, who uses her name in private messages, criticizes her own community, explaining how their reactions have been “disgusting.” Their reactions, however, are ratings, not just private abuse.
The above image shows the perverse inter-relationship between MyWOT’s community. The five top members are famous for mass-voting sites down, and you’ll find their names on many other sites, with those few respectful members left apathetic by the wildly out of control bunch. Do you trust this system?
www.mywot.com have written, as a fourth step to reviewing your score, that you can “invite your friends and customers” to rate your site. This is telling, isn’t it? To rate a site you must have a MyWOT account, which can be joined through Facebook. This gives MyWOT all your information, and the information of your customers and friends, etc,. In other words, MyWOT knowingly trap website owners, offering the owners the chance to hand over all their sites user details, to gain users information and grow their private enterprise. It is a scam.
www.pcgmedia.com are looking into taking legal action against www.mywot.com, for their inability and inaction to review comments, content, and context as stated in their terms and conditions.
Our appeal to My Web of Trust:
You have once again failed to reply to any of my direct messages, or respond to personal racist attacks from weighted users as seen here: http://pcgmedia.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/Capture.jpg
We are being asked to hand over private contractual agreements, user information, names, addresses, and other personal information to a group of anonymous users, with no security as to the use, context, or safety of our information, in order to have a remote possibility of site rating review.
You are facilitating disinformation, misinformation, blackmail, and failing to review and moderate content on your website – which has lead to, including but not limited to, a loss of user traffic and reputation. We are in the process of evaluating potential losses due to a tainted reputation, regarding business and growth. In failing to moderate your forums effectively, perpetuating disinformation regarding myself and my website, you are complicit in slander, among other questionable acts.
In order to change the views of your users, we are forced to hand over personal details such as: names, addresses, contact information. This is blackmail. Your users are given anonymity, and the only way to begin to appease their worries is for us, individuals, to give them, anonymous users, information that jeopardize our civil rights and, potentially, our safety.
You divorce yourself from responsibility whilst facilitating blackmail, and have laid the foundations for illegal data collecting by means of blackmail. The distribution and facilitation of blackmail and disinformation that leads to: financial loss, a loss of security, or a loss of civil rights is indeed illegal, and your disclaimer is not enough to cause us to withdraw a threat of legal action.
You have failed numerous times to reply regarding my comments, and have failed to moderate flagged comments based on your set parameters. You cannot give users the opportunity to flag comments to you, under the notion of ‘misinformation’, then claim that you will not review the accuracy of the information. What is illegal or otherwise is not a matter of opinion – it is fact. Any allegations towards us are not ‘opinions’, they are legal allegations.
We have thus far been unable to disprove the allegations, despite providing information that empirically appeases the criteria for disproof. Therefore, we have been mislead into handing over personal and business information under the guise that doing so will help us to have our rating reviewed. This hasn’t been the case. We have suffered racist abuse in private comments, trolls, and antagonizing comments from your community, which clearly serve each-other.
I expect a full written response, and a review, before I consult a legal team, where I’m sure they will find reason to suggest that facilitating blackmail with regards to handing over personal information is damning. You are not the authors of comments posted by your users, but you are responsible for the terms by which they make them, and the facilitation and solicitation of both private, personal and company information – which you do not protect.
For more information on site owners experiences of WoT, head to this blog. Remember, this is just our “experience” and our “opinion”, two things MyWOT claim are the principles of their rating system. You can also refer to this blog. If you require further information on the overwhelming distrust of ‘My WoT’, look at this article. There are countless articles on the internet exposing the variable truths about what www.mywot.com is, and what they do. Hosting websites and paying staff isn’t free, and given that www.mywot.com has no advertisements, we can’t help but wonder what they do with all that user information, given their site isn’t monetized. I wonder if, perhaps, they sell it? If not the user information, then the user browsing habits to advertising services, I wonder. Which is the biggest irony of all.
Check out 8 reasons why you should not trust WoT.
If you’re still not convinced that My WoT’s users are both malicious, and that their system is flawed, here’s an attempt by one of them to flag my personal Twitter account as ‘phishing’, something that is absolutely ridiculous.
My WoT reply to a comment on their Facebook page.
Michael Cromwell representing PCGMEDIA.com:
“Here’s a conversation between a weighted anonymous user and someone who is not the site owner. In a thread dedicated to my website, this user, having failed to upset the second user enough, antagonizes him further, and then publishes his home address and phone number in a public domain. When asked to cease and desist, the user is met with a “smiley face”.
This is the level of maturity from platinum users – some of the most weighted, on My Web of “Trust”. A site dedicated to stopping phishing and user information abuse… which also facilitates the publication of user information, which is phishing. Ironic.
They fail to respond to any request or complaint, and merely send out automated disclaimers.”
“Please note that high activity level, so Platinum status of the user, does not automatically mean trustworthiness. There are cases where user has low activity level but high trustworthiness and vice versa.
Trustworthiness of a user determines how much weight user’s rating has.”
Michael Cromwell representing PCGMEDIA.com:
I, and my website, want nothing more to do with your system – since it has brought me racist attacks, abuse, and potential harm against a third party not connected to my site.
Remove the unauthorized request for site review – as I see no way in which to appease your users demands. I have laid myself bare for them, yet they seem to want to ruin my life. This, on the guise of “trust.”
How, exactly, do you measure the trustworthiness of “opinion”. For instance, some of your most “trustworthy” users are accusing an advertising affiliate of breaking the law. Law is not opinion. Surely, if a user makes a false legal allegation, that comes at a detriment to his “trustworthiness”
But wait. No. My WoT doesn’t check the validity of any comments, or any content – which means any claims are “opinion”, meaning their accuracy isn’t measured. If you don’t measure trustworthiness by the accuracy of their claims, then your system isn’t measuring trustworthiness proper, it’s measuring “trustworthiness”. In other words, you’ve created a model of trustworthiness that doesn’t reflect trust – it merely reflects their relationship with the community. It is an internal referendum, not an external one that serves those who download your software.
In other words, it’s a complete sham. You give weight to unsubstantiated opinions based on how ‘liked’ a user is within your community, which has proven to be largely twisted, malicious, and self-serving.
In an email to myself, you said “However, it may be a valid reason for someone to rate a site poorly if s/he does not trust the content or organization behind a website.”
Whilst, at the same time you claim you pass no judgement on the validity of claims or opinions. It seems interesting to me that, when I contact you legally, suddenly you have a view on what is a “viable” judgement/opinion/comment, and what isn’t.
Just to note, what your user did is an illegal act. If you fail to moderate it, or act appropriately (the distribution of private information with malicious intent) then you are complicit in breaking the law.
I have records of this conversation. If it is removed without you contacting me further, I will take that as an act of non-compliance with my demands/inquiries, and an admission of guilt. I will then move to take the appropriate action.