Should SiteAdvisor look into the many new, virtually identical reviews at https://www.siteadvisor.com/sites/churchofrevival.com ? I don't want to say much about it because somebody claiming to represent the site sent my SA account a very nasty private message in 2011 threatening legal action and public humiliation for a review that I posted on WOT (not on SA) https://www.mywot.com/scorecard/churchofrevival.org/comment-20272254
I would hope, however, that SiteAdvisor still has a policy forbidding sock puppet reviewers.
You'd have to contact them directly about that as they never post in the forums.
I suggest you anonymize your reviewer account or create a new one that is anonymous.
Private Message abuse can get someone banned here so should be reported. I wasn't aware of a messaging system on the reviewer site.
You have to be careful though, SiteAdvisor and WoT report on how safe it is to go to a site, they can't be judge and arbiter of what the site carries, however they might be interested if reviews are getting stacked.
I have requested a review.
Message was edited by: Ex_Brit on 27/06/14 7:20:39 EDT PM
Thanks, Ex_Brit, I'll follow-up there. The PM in question was posted to my account for this forum. However, my concern in this thread has nothing to do with the PM and doesn't involve me, (except that I simply wanted to explain my reluctance). Rather, it's the unusual reviewer activity: Of the 162 SA reviews for churchofrevival.com, to only one that I'm sure is legitimate was the earliest one posted back in 2011 by a moderator.Message was edited by: NotBuyingIt on 6/27/14 6:43:12 PM CDT
There are two sites with multiple adulatory postings : "churchofrevival.com" and "churchofrevival.org".
I reviewed both of them in 2011 and intended to come back and do it properly at some later date, since both sites appeared to be under construction and the setup was quite confusing : essentially the same outfit, but one site had Russian-language content while the other was in English. The evidence at the time suggested this "church", or "college", or whatever it thinks it is, was for Russian-speakers.
The first site has my review and one other from 2011; it has gained 160 additional reviews in the past fortnight, from a small group of reviewer-names.
The second site has my 2011 review plus a correction (posted twice because of a SA glitch), making 3 : and one other, from "scientist1" who also posted on the dot-com site. This site has gained a staggering 604 reviews in the past fortnight.
This is review spam on an unacceptable scale. The only reason for it is to give both sites a Green rating as far as the review pages are concerned. I don't know why these people have bothered to put in all that work : SiteAdvisor gives both sites a Green rating anyway, so they will both show up as Safe in search results.
This is the big failing of SiteAdvisor : when someone decides to flood the review pages with fake reviews there's no way to stop them or erase the dross from the site pages. You would think that McAfee might hold one of its more globally-visible products in higher regard, but it doesn't seem to care that it's open to abuse.
We can report this to the SiteAdvisor people but I don't expect that anything will be done.
At least though we can try to get that categorisation changed : "Major Global Religion" my wossname.Message was edited by: Hayton on 28/06/14 02:27:54 IST
Check the Trustedsource pages for these two sites : both listed as "Religion/Ideology" and the Last Seen dates for both sites just a day or two after the First Seen dates (late March 2011 for dot-com, late March 2013 for dot-org). I take it that means neither has been re-tested since those dates. Admittedly TrustedSource would have flagged them automatically if there were any malicious activity on either site.
New to the forums or need help finding your way around the forums? There's a whole hub of community resources to help you.
Thousands of customers use the McAfee Community for peer-to-peer and expert product support. Enjoy these benefits with a free membership: