Comments on: Hunches — in combat, and on the Web’s wilds http://www.wordyard.com/2009/07/29/hunches-in-combat-and-on-the-webs-wilds/ Technology, politics, culture Tue, 07 Sep 2010 00:09:54 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1 By: Millie Niss http://www.wordyard.com/2009/07/29/hunches-in-combat-and-on-the-webs-wilds/#comment-12047 Millie Niss Mon, 31 Aug 2009 07:10:17 +0000 http://www.wordyard.com/?p=2212#comment-12047 Many scam sites still have the garish web design of the very early web: animated logos, flashing text, glaring white background, cheesy script or cartoon fonts, etc. A really creepy example (actually there are a least 3 sites with the same business model) is the "discount on your next purchase" button which auto-subscribes you to a monthly paid subscription discount service when you think you are getting a one-time rebate after an individual purchase on a legitimate site. I was saved from this scam because when you click the button, you get to the scam site (without warning; you might think you are still on the site where you made the purchase) which has garish web design and is obviously not trustworthy. See: http://sporkworld.tumblr.com/post/169517800/beware-of-discounts-offered-after-an-online-purchase As I said there, this won't go away unless people boycott the "legit" sites that refer to the scam site. Many scam sites still have the garish web design of the very early web: animated logos, flashing text, glaring white background, cheesy script or cartoon fonts, etc. A really creepy example (actually there are a least 3 sites with the same business model) is the “discount on your next purchase” button which auto-subscribes you to a monthly paid subscription discount service when you think you are getting a one-time rebate after an individual purchase on a legitimate site.

I was saved from this scam because when you click the button, you get to the scam site (without warning; you might think you are still on the site where you made the purchase) which has garish web design and is obviously not trustworthy. See: http://sporkworld.tumblr.com/post/169517800/beware-of-discounts-offered-after-an-online-purchase As I said there, this won’t go away unless people boycott the “legit” sites that refer to the scam site.

]]> By: Greg http://www.wordyard.com/2009/07/29/hunches-in-combat-and-on-the-webs-wilds/#comment-11668 Greg Thu, 13 Aug 2009 18:49:58 +0000 http://www.wordyard.com/?p=2212#comment-11668 Another thing I look for is what the links are. E.g., today I ran across a site that was supposedly about professional game development, but there were -many- links to gambling sites. And the information was scanty, to say the least. Google-bait, I assume. Another thing I look for is what the links are. E.g., today I ran across a site that was supposedly about professional game development, but there were -many- links to gambling sites. And the information was scanty, to say the least. Google-bait, I assume.

]]> By: Hunches — in combat, and on the Web’s wilds | Tech.xooger.com http://www.wordyard.com/2009/07/29/hunches-in-combat-and-on-the-webs-wilds/#comment-11412 Hunches — in combat, and on the Web’s wilds | Tech.xooger.com Sat, 01 Aug 2009 07:37:04 +0000 http://www.wordyard.com/?p=2212#comment-11412 [...] : www.wordyard.com Details : Submited at Saturday, August 1st, 2009 at 2:35 am on Uncategorized by samantha Comment [...] [...] : http://www.wordyard.com Details : Submited at Saturday, August 1st, 2009 at 2:35 am on Uncategorized by samantha Comment [...]

]]> By: Benjamin http://www.wordyard.com/2009/07/29/hunches-in-combat-and-on-the-webs-wilds/#comment-11402 Benjamin Fri, 31 Jul 2009 21:30:58 +0000 http://www.wordyard.com/?p=2212#comment-11402 Spelling and grammar are helpful, but only if you are able to filter them to separate garbage from the ordinary usages of non-native speakers. I flag broken links: one is okay, more is not. I tend to report them too; sites that respond to that are real -- those that don't are junk. Search is more a measure of how sophisticated the webmaster is, to my mind. I like Contact Us -- if all they offer is email, then I am suspicious. A phone number doesn't prove anything (especially if I don't dial it); but lack of phone or physical delivery address is serious. Finally - if there is any good chance this page was a mistake (typo, domain confusion, etc) it should have a clear disambiguation spot prominently displayed. Lacking this is a clear sign that I don't want to deal with these folks. If XYZ.COM doesn't let you know that XYZ.GOV is a different group, there is something wrong. Spelling and grammar are helpful, but only if you are able to filter them to separate garbage from the ordinary usages of non-native speakers.

I flag broken links: one is okay, more is not. I tend to report them too; sites that respond to that are real — those that don’t are junk.

Search is more a measure of how sophisticated the webmaster is, to my mind. I like Contact Us — if all they offer is email, then I am suspicious. A phone number doesn’t prove anything (especially if I don’t dial it); but lack of phone or physical delivery address is serious.

Finally – if there is any good chance this page was a mistake (typo, domain confusion, etc) it should have a clear disambiguation spot prominently displayed. Lacking this is a clear sign that I don’t want to deal with these folks. If XYZ.COM doesn’t let you know that XYZ.GOV is a different group, there is something wrong.

]]> By: David http://www.wordyard.com/2009/07/29/hunches-in-combat-and-on-the-webs-wilds/#comment-11400 David Fri, 31 Jul 2009 17:51:42 +0000 http://www.wordyard.com/?p=2212#comment-11400 I look at where the links point, and in particular, any link that I'm asked directly to click on. If the links point to an unexpected domain, or if they are obfuscated via javascript, then I get cautious. I look at where the links point, and in particular, any link that I’m asked directly to click on. If the links point to an unexpected domain, or if they are obfuscated via javascript, then I get cautious.

]]> By: Marjanne Pearson http://www.wordyard.com/2009/07/29/hunches-in-combat-and-on-the-webs-wilds/#comment-11393 Marjanne Pearson Thu, 30 Jul 2009 14:11:00 +0000 http://www.wordyard.com/?p=2212#comment-11393 For websites and blogs, the first indicator is spelling and grammar. Although these problems are not limited to sites that aren't trustworthy, they do raise an immediate flag. For Twitter, the number (and list) of followers is a primary indicator. As Rebecca said, if no one is following the user, there is probably a reason why. For the rest, well, it's a matter of judgment. Anyone can purchase a domain, and blog/website templates are easily accessed and developed. Assessment requires intellectual curiosity: Why is this site in existence? What message is it sending? What does the site owner want? For websites and blogs, the first indicator is spelling and grammar. Although these problems are not limited to sites that aren’t trustworthy, they do raise an immediate flag.

For Twitter, the number (and list) of followers is a primary indicator. As Rebecca said, if no one is following the user, there is probably a reason why.

For the rest, well, it’s a matter of judgment. Anyone can purchase a domain, and blog/website templates are easily accessed and developed. Assessment requires intellectual curiosity: Why is this site in existence? What message is it sending? What does the site owner want?

]]> By: Rebecca Rolfes http://www.wordyard.com/2009/07/29/hunches-in-combat-and-on-the-webs-wilds/#comment-11391 Rebecca Rolfes Thu, 30 Jul 2009 12:36:21 +0000 http://www.wordyard.com/?p=2212#comment-11391 I mistrust sites that have no search--until I spend enough time there to discover that there's not really enough to need a search function. I mistrust blogs that have no comments and Twitter feeds that have no followers. I'm being followed by someone who has never tweeted, who follows over 200 people but no one follows him/her. I feel a little unsafe, like I'm looking over my shoulder when I tweet. I mistrust sites that have old data--of their own or someone else's. "A 2005 study shows..." that sort of thing. That may be laziness rather than a desire to fool me but it still undercuts credibility. Ugly sites? I just feel sorry for them but there's so many of them out there. I mistrust sites that have no search–until I spend enough time there to discover that there’s not really enough to need a search function. I mistrust blogs that have no comments and Twitter feeds that have no followers. I’m being followed by someone who has never tweeted, who follows over 200 people but no one follows him/her. I feel a little unsafe, like I’m looking over my shoulder when I tweet. I mistrust sites that have old data–of their own or someone else’s. “A 2005 study shows…” that sort of thing. That may be laziness rather than a desire to fool me but it still undercuts credibility. Ugly sites? I just feel sorry for them but there’s so many of them out there.

]]> By: Darren http://www.wordyard.com/2009/07/29/hunches-in-combat-and-on-the-webs-wilds/#comment-11389 Darren Wed, 29 Jul 2009 22:33:42 +0000 http://www.wordyard.com/?p=2212#comment-11389 That's a great article. I have a similar conversation ever time I'm trying to teach some students how to evaluate the popularity of blogs and websites. There are the imperfect empirical measures (PageRank, Technorati, incoming links, Compete, Alexa and so forth), but I really emphasize the anecdotal stuff. These are marketers, mostly, but 'popular' and 'authoritative and trustworthy' usually go hand in hand: * Number of comments * Design aesthetic--is it a default template or have they got a customer header et al? * Do they have their own domain? * How much social media stuff is in their sidebar? * Is it blanketed with cheesy ads? That’s a great article.

I have a similar conversation ever time I’m trying to teach some students how to evaluate the popularity of blogs and websites. There are the imperfect empirical measures (PageRank, Technorati, incoming links, Compete, Alexa and so forth), but I really emphasize the anecdotal stuff. These are marketers, mostly, but ‘popular’ and ‘authoritative and trustworthy’ usually go hand in hand:

* Number of comments
* Design aesthetic–is it a default template or have they got a customer header et al?
* Do they have their own domain?
* How much social media stuff is in their sidebar?
* Is it blanketed with cheesy ads?

]]>