Good idea - implementation is awful

Cons: SiteAdvisor is a good idea. But, there exist serious flaws in the scanning engine. It makes false, libelous accusations against some sites due to errors in their algorithms. Unfortunately, people blindly believe these results. If there were some way to correct this it would be bearable. But McAfee support just sends you in circles for days everyone telling you to call someone else. If you want to call tech support; you have to pay by the minute even though it’s their error. (What’s the definition of extortion?) They don’t just mark good sites RED; but also mark the sites red in search engines and even ads. That is, they modify Google, Yahoo and MSN results with their flawed technology. You can respond with a comment. But no one will ever see it because they won’t click on a RED site to start with. So what we have is a scarlet letter X pasted on the foreheads of innocent people with little recourse from a self-appointed guardian of Internet virtue.

I have been involved with the I’Net and before that the ArpaNet for decades and would love to see an accurate method of warning against the scum that engage in adware, spyware, spamming, phishing, etc. But SiteAdvisor should concentrate more on getting it right and not destroying honest sites before making mass efforts at selling their product. Otherwise, by destroying honest, valuable sites, SiteAdvisor itself may become one of the worst offenders in I’Net history.

Posted: 14-Feb-2007 07:58:19 AM

Good idea - terrible implementation

Cons: SiteAdvisor is a good idea. But, there exist serious flaws in the scanning engine. It makes false, libelous accusations against some sites due to errors in their algorithms. Unfortunately, people blindly believe these results. If there were some way to correct this it would be bearable. But McAfee support just sends you in circles for days everyone telling you to call someone else. If you want to call tech support; you have to pay by the minute even though it’s their error. (What’s the definition of extortion?) They don’t just mark good sites RED; but also mark the sites red in search engines and even ads. That is, they modify Google, Yahoo and MSN results with their flawed technology. You can respond with a comment. But no one will ever see it because they won’t click on a RED site to start with. So what we have is a scarlet letter X pasted on the foreheads of innocent people with little recourse from a self-appointed guardian of Internet virtue.

I have been involved with the I’Net and before that the ArpaNet for decades and would love to see an accurate method of warning against the scum that engage in adware, spyware, spamming, phishing, etc. But SiteAdvisor should concentrate more on getting it right and not destroying honest sites before making mass efforts at selling their product. Otherwise, by destroying honest, valuable sites, SiteAdvisor itself may become one of the worst offenders in I’Net history.

Posted: 14-Feb-2007 07:52:34 AM

Come on, it's just an ad for online casinos

Cons: This is an ad. It is just like all of the free casino software that keeps begging you to gamble.

Posted: 19-Apr-2005 03:45:42 PM