RE: Getting Site Retested II

[tullolad]

Raja ... yes I have repeatedly provided feedback and reports. Yet another has been posted today in the form of a technical expert's complete analysis of the site that shows the links you allege do, in fact, no longer exist. The site, as I have repeatedly assured you, is clean and has no malicious or potentially dangeerous links. :eek:

[andii]

I was just wondering if it’s an unreasonable request to get this damaging red warning changed to grey status while we’re waiting for the re-test to take place? After all, we are now drawing towards the end of the 7th month of re-test attempts.

Cheers

Andy

[tullolad]

Neat idea, although I wonder if any flag other than green implies risk for users and casts doubts in their minds. Just get the damned system working the way they promise it should. They have no right to impose this arbitrary judgement on the world.

[exbrit]

Well I think that Raja is doing his best here and he seems to have the right contacts. I'm also going to make it a subject for our next conference call with McAfee about the current problems we have encountered here and there.
(We are unpaid volunteers working from home).

[tullolad]

As one ex-Brit to another, I can only agree that Raja is doing his best but this is a management/ownership/executive problem and should not fall on to the shoulders of one concerned and motivated individual. What are the faceless people at McAfee doing to remedy the harm they are inflicting upon us? Good luck with the conference call.

[exbrit]

It's next Monday night, so I'll report back on it.

[tullolad]

All power to you. We await the result with bated breath. How I long for that wrongful red flag to disappear. Cheers.

[Raja]

Guys,

It looks like there is a problem with the website. I just submitted some test feedback and it's not getting into the database. I'm looking into the problem now.

-R-

[andii]

I may be looking at this the wrong way here, but one can’t help but be a little cynical due to the lack of support (no disrespects to you Raja). After all, those of us complaining here are not exactly lining the pockets of McAfee, well not directly anyway. And the more red warnings they remove from websites, the less opportunity they have of ‘scaring’ (for want of a better word), web surfers to upgrade to their SiteAdvisor Plus 2008, and other McAfee security products.

The more ‘potential’ dangers they can expose to the world, the better their chances are of selling products to protect us all from wicked sites like mr roomfinder and yarraboy.com

At the end of the day, isn’t the McAfee bottom line what this is all about? They might be more about CARE than CASH, but I somehow doubt it! 😛

It looks like there is a problem with the website. I just submitted some test feedback and it's not getting into the database. I'm looking into the problem now.

Well, as i say, i put my first requests in for re-test when i heard about the red flag on my site way back in September of last year and got no response then. Either the SA team thinks there are no complaints, or requests for retesting coming through from anyone, or they know their support system is broken and prefer to keep it that way. Heck, dare i even suggest they disabled it themselves grin No, I'm sure a huge concern like this relish feedback about their products and services. Sorry about the comments, but frustration does sometimes lead to a little justified sarcasm!:o

Andy

[tullolad]

I would have thought there were enough bad sites out there to keep any "scare" program going forever and further boost McAfee sales without flagging unmalicious sites - and certainly not without responding far more promptly to site owners' queries and complaints. Basically, all we are asking for is something called service, which seems to be missing from McAfee's lexicon. It's not that difficult to type a quick response.:rolleyes: