Siteadvisor FP on Bitsum's Process Lasso

[Iangh]

http://www.bitsum.com/forum/index.php?topic=154.0

Any Siteadvisor team-members visiting Wilders - could you please fix?

Ian

[lordpake]

http://www.siteadvisor.com/sites/bit...18#post1250318

I ain't SiteAdvisor staff, thus I am free to post my own view ...

[Iangh]

Originally Posted by lordpake

http://www.siteadvisor.com/sites/bit...18#post1250318

I ain't SiteAdvisor staff, thus I am free to post my own view ...

You support Siteadvisor FPs?

What is your objective in posting what you did?

I use the software for free and sympathise with a big company tainting a small company.

Avira flagged Process Lasso as a FP and it was fixed within a few days.

Why should Siteadvisor be different to the rest of the security industry?

As I said, what's your objective?

Ian

[lordpake]

My objective is this: "There are proper official channels to pursue this, asking users to post here is not one of them ..."

Simple and clear. They have a problem with McAfee Siteadvisor, they take it to McAfee.


The way I see it, encouraging users to post there constitutes as an attempt to manipulate page rating, "game the system" so to speak ...


Edit: It should be noted that while I do sympathize with the situation bitsum is in, I really think they should have gone by the book with this one.

[Iangh]

Originally Posted by lordpake

Edit: It should be noted that while I do sympathize with the situation bitsum is in, I really think they should have gone by the book with this one.

For the sake of it let's assume Jeremy went about it the wrong way by posting in Comments a week ago.

What's the right way?

Bear in mind this guy runs a small software company and as we know your personal reputation can make or break a company, and given the current economic climate the small guys will suffer more.

[lordpake]

Originally Posted by Iangh

What's the right way?

Required information should be here http://www.siteadvisor.com/about/contact.html



Edit: It should also be noted that with a different posting by the author in their forum they would have got my support, such as "we are having issues with f/p regarding SA, please bear with us, trying to solve this issue". In such a case, I would have almost certainly given a green supportive rating, but alas, we are now committed to another path

[PROROOTECT]

CONGRATS Iangh!

Your suggestion to defend Jeremy Collake with Bitsum Technologies and Process Lasso - is very good.
Fortunately we have not jet the adhesive tape on the mouth.
Here: Not yet.

[BlueZannetti]

Originally Posted by lordpake

Required information should be here http://www.siteadvisor.com/about/contact.html

As well as a step or two down from that link, one finds McAfee® SiteAdvisor™ Site Rating Dispute Resolution Process, which bitsum does appear to be pursuing. The user comment section is a feature of SiteAdvisor which McAfee notes

Reviewer comments shows what our volunteer reviewers have to say about this Web site. These comments are posted unedited.

There's nothing wrong with encouraging active users to voice an opinion, that is precisely what this feature is for and it serves as an interim solution while the formal process runs in the background.

Personally, I wouldn't term what Mr Collake has encouraged active users of his products to do as spamming or anything like it. Actually, all he requested was (using his own words...)

Please, comment about the legitimacy of our site at SiteAdvisor. You don't even have to love us, just report that we aren't to be lumped with malware sites.

which is reasonable given the situation.

Blue

[Iangh]

Originally Posted by lordpake

Required information should be here http://www.siteadvisor.com/about/contact.html



Edit: It should also be noted that with a different posting by the author in their forum they would have got my support, such as "we are having issues with f/p regarding SA, please bear with us, trying to solve this issue". In such a case, I would have almost certainly given a green supportive rating, but alas, we are now committed to another path

lordpake

I think you need to check your ego.

Some people like to help others and be constructive, whereas, there are those that like to score points.

MODS - please close the thread.

Ian

[lordpake]

Originally Posted by Iangh

lordpake

I think you need to check your ego.

No need to get personal here.

This is my perspective in this particular matter.

Since you do not know me, your accusation of me simply looking for points can be excused. I have a history of helping people and providing constructive feedback in various forums.

[PROROOTECT]

I believe that Process Lasso is a unique, wonderful software from Bitsum Technologies, 100% safe.
I never trusted McAffee or Yahoo! - with their questionable and aggressive advertising.
NOW everyone can see that these two web-sites are very poorly informed - and NOW they deliberately seek to mislead people with FALSE alarms.
This is contrary to good sense of all of us and to the law.
Red - rather McAffee- and Yahoo!: Just see the color of their banners.
McAffee - and Yahoo! : Lack of professionalism, now is visible to all, this is proof!
If they still have a little common sense, they are immediately repair their mistake and apologize to Jeremy Collake ( Bitsum Technologies, Process Lasso ) and to us all! And to me in particular: I used Process Lasso for years.

Process Lasso: extreme speed with automatic adjustment of Windows memory! 100% Free; 100% Safe!

It is not 'spam'; it is my opinion.

[BlueZannetti]

Originally Posted by PROROOTECT

Now everyone can see that these two web-sites are very poorly informed - and they deliberately seek to mislead people with false alarms.

While the Siteadvisor rating for bitsum is ill-considered, it is quite easy to see how it came about, as Mr Collake himself appears to recognize.

This is not a case of deliberately misleading people. I tend to view it as more a case of the unintended consequences of being aggressive in developing site ratings and trying to be as comprehensive as possible.

Unfortunate outcomes are not always the result of malicious intent.

Blue

[lordpake]

Also, there's Siteadvisor forum here http://community.mcafee.com/forumdisplay.php?f=194

In case the pages given above do not work, or such. While I haven't seen much of the actual staff there, moderating staff seems to be present often and can guide people to right direction.

[PROROOTECT]

OK., I rectified:

NOW everyone can see that these two web-sites are very poorly informed - and NOW they deliberately seek to soak people with FALSE alarms.

Is this better? ...

Thank you, Blue !

[jcollake]

I am shocked an appalled at lordpake's comments. The problem is the result of a false positive, this isn't a debate about classification. All I want is to get this technical snafu fixed..

For the record, I HAVE pursued proper channels. SiteAdvisor didn't respond for 7 days, and the problem still isn't fixed 9 days later. Yahoo responded immediately and said that McAfee may take weeks to fix the problem.

Further, the original false positive that caused this problem was reported months ago to McAfee, only to not yet be resolved. They are extremely unresponsive to fixing false positives, as you can quickly learn if you google about other false positive problems. I mean, really.. they don't even care to respond.

Maybe I haven't been nice enough, I don't know. After a while, I get tired of asking so nicely to please quit calling my site or software dangerous due to a completely errant false positive.. you know?

Since that didn't appear to work (at least not within any reasonable time-frame, I am trying to feed my family you know), I asked users to comment at SiteAdvisor about the legitimacy of bitsum.com.

What would you do? Wait and wait and wait until you go out of business? I wasn't asking anyone to spam, I was asking them to leave their comment... because I didn't know what else to do. McAfee wasn't repsonding..

To me, this is sickening. I work hard to develop quality software at an affordable (or free) price. Now, a false positive threatens the business I've worked years to build.

Ugh, I'm so upset and disillusioned.

EDIT: Lastly, lordpake.. you seem to be acting vindictively. I'm not behaving like you want, so you encourage a FALSE POSITIVE to continue rating my site red? Does this mean you encourage false positives or what? I mean, again.. this isn't a debate, it's a technical snafu. *WHY* would you do this? Please.. come on man. I wasn't asking anyone to spam. And even if you think I was, it is unrelated to the false positive that is causing the RED/DANGEROUS rating.

[jcollake]

Last comment.. At this point, I feel somewhat extorted. I don't even know what to do anymore.

I guess SiteAdvisor and its reviewers have total power to do whatever they want, however they want, for any reason they want.. even when those reasons are so clearly invalid as they are in this case.

There will eventually be a class action lawsuit against McAfee for their irresponsible behavior. They have to take responsibility for their claims. It is slander.. If you want to say I have dangerous downloads, and refuse to fix that problem, then I think you should be required to actually show I do have dangerous downloads.

I guess I'll just be going out of business, if that's what it comes to. After 10 years, a minor false alarm on a single download will bring my business to a halt. It would be fixed, but for some people who have decided to apparently abuse their power. (I'm sorry, lordpake, I realize I should be kissing your butt, but I just can't anymore.. you are so wrong, and its just so mean).

[lordpake]

Originally Posted by jcollake

EDIT: Lastly, lordpake.. you seem to be acting vindictively. I'm not behaving like you want, so you encourage a FALSE POSITIVE to continue rating my site red? Does this mean you encourage false positives or what? I mean, again.. this isn't a debate, it's a technical snafu. *WHY* would you do this? Please.. come on man. I wasn't asking anyone to spam. And even if you think I was, it is unrelated to the false positive that is causing the RED/DANGEROUS rating.

I am not vindictive, as you put it. I simply make decisions based on the information at hand


And to me it appeared as if you encouraged "posting" there. If I misunderstood your wording, then apologies for that.


However, you should also understand how your msg in your forum appeared to outsider. I have already explained it above, your wording has a possibility to convey the wrong image. That of gaming the system. In my view in this situation it would be completely acceptable to post as I posted, to counter some of those other posts that might not even be there in another situation.


You should also be aware that I have in the past posted green opposing ratings when some spammer with agenda has seemingly gone after some individual/company etc. in Siteadvisor.

So I am not by any means vindictive, more of a concerned member there.

If it makes you happy, I will proceed with request for them to remove my 'offending' post, to show I am a reasonable individual.

edit: grammar.

[jcollake]

Ok, well I've managed to probably make the problem worse thanks to my anger about this whole ordeal. It has just been going on for so long now..

I ended up posting a couple negative comments about your negative rating. I apologize if I got you all wrong. I just couldn't believe it... I've felt so wronged by this whole thing, and then this happened. I thought I was doing what I was supposed to by encouraging my users to help legitimize my site. I understand how SiteAdvisor could be gamed by others, but I wasn't trying to game it.

I didn't come back to visit this thread because I was trying to forget this whole incident and just get back to work. When I finally came back, you had changed your tune.. figures, lol.

Too bad we can't edit or remove SiteAdvisor comments.

I just felt so hurt, and still do, though you turning out to be reasonable helps with that... You didn't seem reasonable by rating me further red, so please understand how I misunderstood.

So, I'm sorry, I am going to delete my blog posting and other references I may have made to your vindictiveness.

[lordpake]

jcollage, no problem from my side

Blog postings? Perhaps it's a good thing I didn't find out about them

[Iangh]

Jeremy tells me still no response from McAfee.

I find this disappointing as McAfee is one of the blue-chip brand-names in the industry.

Is the A-V division as slow when fixing FPs?

Ian

[PROROOTECT]

I AM APPALLED by this NASTY ATTITUDE !!!

[PROROOTECT]

OPINION RESEARCH

From what date exactly, McAfee announced the False Positive ( FP ) about Bitsum Technologies and Process Lasso?

I'm writing an article on the history of descent into hell of the McAfee.

I plan to publish first on Wilders Forums.

Thank you for your answer here or on the PM box.

PROROOTECT

[PROROOTECT]

HELP OUR PROCESS LASSO !!!

Help OUR Process Lasso!

I'm faithfull!

I'm a stranger HERE ...

[JW Clements]

Originally Posted by BlueZannetti

While the Siteadvisor rating for bitsum is ill-considered, it is quite easy to see how it came about, as Mr Collake himself appears to recognize.

This is not a case of deliberately misleading people. I tend to view it as more a case of the unintended consequences of being aggressive in developing site ratings and trying to be as comprehensive as possible.

Unfortunate outcomes are not always the result of malicious intent.

Blue

Hey Blue, well put. I'd like to inject my interpretation though, that if McA doesn't have enough resources, or interest, in cleaning up when FPs are reported, then they do deserve some criticism. The method of delivering the criticism may be drastic and have unanticipated, collateral consequences, but, to use a (poor) anlogy, if there isn't a fire and yet the bells ring, and ring, and ring and ring and ring (you get the idea...) and the 'bell keeper' can't or won't turn the bells OFF, then lots of folks should yell at him(her), 'cause folks can't get their work done when those pesky bells keep ringing. Not being a user of McA I haven't any personal experience with their attitude/competancy/capability to fix things. I *do* know that Netcraft shows green and Trend has no complaints, so I hope that's a positive feeling for BitSum. But if an alligator bites your (insert your own image here) while you're positively enjoying a 'cool one', guess which gets your full (definitely aggravated and agreived and negative) attention.
[correct guess: the McAlligator which doesn't care about our concerns, only about it's own]
Respectfully, to all that have posted to or have just read this thread, give the folks at BitSum the benefit of doubt about their intentions.
All together now, smile and tip a 'cool one'....
Jim C

[jcollake]

An update:

The problem still persists. No action has been taken. Bitsum.com and processlasso.com are still RED/DANGEROUS for no good reason.

Note that the MakeService utility that McAfee false alarmed on has even been removed from Bitsum.com for a couple months now, and processlasso.com is now insulated from the rest of the site in case any other false alarms ever occur.

I have repeatedly contacted SiteAdvisor, McAfee, AvertLabs, and Network Associates. The two responses I've got (from SiteAdvisor only) don't say anything much - just that their engineers would look into it.

This is all very frustrating. McAfee / SiteAdvisor clearly have no interest in fixing this problem. As best I can tell, they haven't even bothered a 'rescan' of the site.

Whether or not Lordpake's rating has hurt my cause, I don't know. It certainly didn't help.. but I suspect the problem would still exist regardless.. as SiteAdvisor/McAfee have literally done nothing.

I am mailing off a letter to the chairman of Network Associates, hoping maybe he'll respond to my support request.

In the meantime, my business is failing. I've been working harder than usual, trying to polish my business in ways I never cared about before.. but nothing seems to help much. With the combined effects of the economy and this errant red rating, this is not going to be a good Christmas for me.

Again note that I've followed every procedure listed in the 'Dispute Resolution Process'... in fact, I've done so several times now.

Thanks to those users who have cared about this continuing issue. If there wasn't originally malicious intent on the part of McAfee/SiteAdvisor, their complacency certainly seems malicious. Maybe I haven't begged hard enough...