Here's my unsolicited testimony. Try the WOT (web of trust) plug in for Firefox and IE. It's a user rated service that warns about untrustworthy websites. It's not perfect but it's a good tool in avoiding scams. BTW the give Ask Leo an excellent rating. :)
The concern I have with sites like WOT is that you still don't know who's writing the opinions - they could, in fact, be fake, or have a hidden agenda. I'm not saying that they are. But if I piss someone off with a review or opinion they disagree with, one way they could "get back at me" would be to go fabricate a negative review of my site. Or consider a site that plans to cause trouble in the future - all they need do is seed sites like WOT with (fake) glowing reviews to give people a false sense of safety. WOT and sites like it are a fine resource, but sadly they, too, must be taken with a grain of salt.
18-Feb-2010
Posted by: Mark at February 17, 2010 8:01 AM
The Internet needs a User Guide, learning by making mistakes can be quite costly.
Sadly, the point here also applies to messages, warnings, pop-ups and the like from your computer. You can't trust them either. So many people get tricked by phony virus infection warnings. Below is a link to an example I recently wrote about, regarding a warning to upgrade the Flash Player plugin. In this case the warning was mostly legit, but the point being, most people can't judge these things. Sad state of affairs.
Posted by: Michael Horowitz at February 22, 2010 10:17 AM
Leo, Good article, but I think that the site should be named. Ond of the great things about the internet is that the word (both good and bad) gets around. I somehow doubt tht identifying a site as containing a false endorsement is grounds for a lawsuit, and you seem to have plenty of proof that it is doing just that. On the other hand if you know that authorities are investigating the site and do not want to directly alert the site owner(s), not ID'ing it makes sense.
I agree with you on WOT. I have seen legitimate sites blocked by WOT because some people did not like the political views expressed on the site. OT and other tools should not involve itself in blocking free speech, but it does. I'd recommend that Firefox users use Link Extend as well, since it shows the site ratings by a number of product vendors similar to WOT, like SiteAdvisor, WOT, Browser Defender, and about 3-4 others. https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/10777
My friend has idenfied the site publicly, and has contacted the appropriate authorities with all the details, so there's no real benefit to be had by my naming names here. (Though perhaps I should head out to WOT and post a review on it. )
24-Feb-2010
Posted by: howiem at February 23, 2010 8:50 AM
A friend and entertainment promoter used to dissect reviews from legitimate wire sources. If the press called a production an incredible flop, he would say that critics called the show "incredible..." and simply omit the word flop. Though this wasn't a fabrication, it wasn't the WHOLE truth; some of his means were less than licit. When confronted and questioned about his tactics, he said, [i]"Kid,"[/i] (I was only 30 something at the time) [i]"never let the truth stand in the way of a good promotion."[/i] I say, take that advice and apply it wherever you think it fits.
Posted by: jwildhair at February 23, 2010 10:28 AM
It's not just the internet, and it's not just hick rubes getting taken for a ride. May I point out a recent name? Bernie Madoff? The internet is no better, or worse, an investment venue than the other channels.
Posted by: Mike at February 23, 2010 11:05 AM
As tricky dick said "Trust but verify"
Even internet "experts" must be suspect. Have you read about the expert, Randall C Kennedy, who quoted his alias, Devil Mountain CTO Craig Barth, for stories. More info at:
http://blogs.zdnet.com/BTL/?p=31024&tag=nl.e019
Actually that was Ronald Reagan, but the sentiment is accurate. As I've said before, everything on the internet is best approached with a very healthy dose of skepticism.
24-Feb-2010
Posted by: Rohn at February 23, 2010 12:07 PM
Tricky Dick didn't say "Trust, but verify," Ronald Reagan said it.
I just google with the words product and review where product is the particular item we are wanting to learn about.
There is no need to even visit those webpages. The opening lines say everything about it. Good or bad.
Ravi.
Posted by: Ravi Agrawal at February 23, 2010 10:12 PM
First, a Pet Peeve: "Internet", not "internet", always. It's a proper noun. You might notice, Leo, that you've got your commenters doing it, too -- grrrr! Please! ALWAYS capitalize the word "Internet", folks! That's the correct spelling & usage!
Now: with THAT off my chest...
The way I typically decide on the trustworthiness of a recommendation (especially a computer program) is based upon the trustworthiness of the recommender. I happen to have a short list of what I might term "Trusted Recommenders" -- perhaps they might be of interest to you. In no particular order:
Bob Rankin and/or Patrick Crispin (The Internet Tourbus)
Brian Livingston and/or Fred Langa et. al (WindowsSecrets)
Kim Komando (Her multitudinous varieties of E-Newsletter)
And of course (need I even say it?) Leo A. Notenboom (Ask Leo!)
I have come to respect these sources as reliable and trustworthy, and any recommendation any of them might offer is generally presumed valid and safe, at least initially and barring any counterindication, and particularly so if more than one of them has mentioned the same item.
More generally, good spelling, proper grammar, and a clean page counts for something (not much, but something). If I see an item on a page free of errors, I tend to believe the item itself is likelier than otherwise to itself be error-free. On the other hand, if the page is full of typos or spelling mistakes or grammatical errors, it doesn't much matter the reputation of the page-writer, I don't put a lot of faith in what he writes just on that basis alone! Who would trust in the carefulness of a person -- a programmer, perhaps? -- who is too careless, even to SPELL correctly?!?
Posted by: Glenn P. at February 27, 2010 2:02 AM
None of those 'trust programs' are up to date although some are better than others.
If a web site makes a change to something nefarious (or vice versa), they won't be 'updated' till the next sweep. I use WOT. I've had to say "Oops!" a few times and I've been to 'red' sites and not had any problems.
And it's 'e-mail' not 'email'. Kinda like 'snail mail' not 'snailmail'!
Comments
Read the article that everyone's commenting on.
Subscribe to the RSS Feed for comments on this article.
Here's my unsolicited testimony. Try the WOT (web of trust) plug in for Firefox and IE. It's a user rated service that warns about untrustworthy websites. It's not perfect but it's a good tool in avoiding scams. BTW the give Ask Leo an excellent rating. :)
18-Feb-2010
Posted by: Mark at February 17, 2010 8:01 AM
The Internet needs a User Guide, learning by making mistakes can be quite costly.
Sadly, the point here also applies to messages, warnings, pop-ups and the like from your computer. You can't trust them either. So many people get tricked by phony virus infection warnings. Below is a link to an example I recently wrote about, regarding a warning to upgrade the Flash Player plugin. In this case the warning was mostly legit, but the point being, most people can't judge these things. Sad state of affairs.
http://blogs.computerworld.com/15629/adobe_goofs_on_flash_player_version_warning
Posted by: Michael Horowitz at February 22, 2010 10:17 AMLeo, Good article, but I think that the site should be named. Ond of the great things about the internet is that the word (both good and bad) gets around. I somehow doubt tht identifying a site as containing a false endorsement is grounds for a lawsuit, and you seem to have plenty of proof that it is doing just that. On the other hand if you know that authorities are investigating the site and do not want to directly alert the site owner(s), not ID'ing it makes sense.
I agree with you on WOT. I have seen legitimate sites blocked by WOT because some people did not like the political views expressed on the site. OT and other tools should not involve itself in blocking free speech, but it does. I'd recommend that Firefox users use Link Extend as well, since it shows the site ratings by a number of product vendors similar to WOT, like SiteAdvisor, WOT, Browser Defender, and about 3-4 others. https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/10777
24-Feb-2010
Posted by: howiem at February 23, 2010 8:50 AM
A friend and entertainment promoter used to dissect reviews from legitimate wire sources. If the press called a production an incredible flop, he would say that critics called the show "incredible..." and simply omit the word flop. Though this wasn't a fabrication, it wasn't the WHOLE truth; some of his means were less than licit. When confronted and questioned about his tactics, he said, [i]"Kid,"[/i] (I was only 30 something at the time) [i]"never let the truth stand in the way of a good promotion."[/i] I say, take that advice and apply it wherever you think it fits.
Posted by: jwildhair at February 23, 2010 10:28 AMIt's not just the internet, and it's not just hick rubes getting taken for a ride. May I point out a recent name? Bernie Madoff? The internet is no better, or worse, an investment venue than the other channels.
Posted by: Mike at February 23, 2010 11:05 AMAs tricky dick said "Trust but verify"
Even internet "experts" must be suspect. Have you read about the expert, Randall C Kennedy, who quoted his alias, Devil Mountain CTO Craig Barth, for stories. More info at:
http://blogs.zdnet.com/BTL/?p=31024&tag=nl.e019
24-Feb-2010
Tricky Dick didn't say "Trust, but verify," Ronald Reagan said it.
Posted by: Tom R. at February 23, 2010 1:34 PMhttp://www.reagan.utexas.edu/archives/speeches/1987/120887c.htm
I just google with the words product and review where product is the particular item we are wanting to learn about.
There is no need to even visit those webpages. The opening lines say everything about it. Good or bad.
Ravi.
Posted by: Ravi Agrawal at February 23, 2010 10:12 PMFirst, a Pet Peeve: "Internet", not "internet", always. It's a proper noun. You might notice, Leo, that you've got your commenters doing it, too -- grrrr! Please! ALWAYS capitalize the word "Internet", folks! That's the correct spelling & usage!
Now: with THAT off my chest...
The way I typically decide on the trustworthiness of a recommendation (especially a computer program) is based upon the trustworthiness of the recommender. I happen to have a short list of what I might term "Trusted Recommenders" -- perhaps they might be of interest to you. In no particular order:
I have come to respect these sources as reliable and trustworthy, and any recommendation any of them might offer is generally presumed valid and safe, at least initially and barring any counterindication, and particularly so if more than one of them has mentioned the same item.
More generally, good spelling, proper grammar, and a clean page counts for something (not much, but something). If I see an item on a page free of errors, I tend to believe the item itself is likelier than otherwise to itself be error-free. On the other hand, if the page is full of typos or spelling mistakes or grammatical errors, it doesn't much matter the reputation of the page-writer, I don't put a lot of faith in what he writes just on that basis alone! Who would trust in the carefulness of a person -- a programmer, perhaps? -- who is too careless, even to SPELL correctly?!?
Posted by: Glenn P. at February 27, 2010 2:02 AMNone of those 'trust programs' are up to date although some are better than others.
Posted by: sirpaul1 at March 9, 2010 11:47 PMIf a web site makes a change to something nefarious (or vice versa), they won't be 'updated' till the next sweep. I use WOT. I've had to say "Oops!" a few times and I've been to 'red' sites and not had any problems.
And it's 'e-mail' not 'email'. Kinda like 'snail mail' not 'snailmail'!
To post a comment on "How do I know what to believe on the internet?", please return to that article's main page.