We have even sent the Site Advisor support team site by site comparison URLs where email addresses were unshielded and green ratings were given by Site Advisor versus our shielded addresses and red rating. The service and response from McAfee AND Yahoo has been pathetic. McAfe won’t act and Yahoo puts their head in the sand. Yet our business continues to be impacted everyday because of their inaction.

We are exploring the possibility of a class action against McAfee and Yahoo. If you have been negatively impacted by an unfair or inacurrate Site Advisor rating, please email a quick note to siteadvisorclassaction@gmail.com. You don’t need to provide any personal information, we just need to see the level of response from the internet community and whether we can make this happen.

Thank you,
Ken
siteadvisorclassaction@gmail.com
http://siteadvisorclassaction.blogspot.com/

Our company has several products in the market. kingkongcapture.com is a popular software program marked with an x by site advisor. We purchased some code from a third party vendor who also works with aol and many others. It appears that site advisor thought this code was something bad and immediately flagged us. Even though our program does nothing bad and can be fully removed we responded immediately and removed this part of our code and made changes to get our program to work. Now it has been 5 months since they checked the link and we are still red. we lose money every day from this.

To add further insult you can look at our other program called zaazu. in this program we ask user if they want to use our search page as their home page. if they choose yes then we change their home page to a zaazu page. This is the same practice as google toolbar, yahoo toolbar and many other programs. they give us an exclamation mark and not a perfect mark for doing this but they give google and yahoo a good mark. it appears to me that they discriminate heavily.

if they accidentally mark a site bad they should have a quick review if you ask to put the site back to good. it is not fair to wait 5-7 months to re-test.

McAfee immediately red flagged my site, claiming it was sending spam emails in the form of newsletters. The online antique mall I originally was hosted with put an optin newsletter form on every site within that mall. You had to check it off in order to receive it. I had no control over the distribution of those newsletters at all. If one of my customers filled out the form, then the mall handled the rest.

Even though I’m no longer affliated with them, I’ve still got the warning mark, though now downgraded to yellow. But that doesn’t matter, because your average web user will see yellow and still not bother to click. There are too many other sites out there with green marks for them to bother. Not to mention, it can certainly affect any type of linking campaign, as other sites wont’ want to link to me.

I’ve emailed them several times, even emailing to Shane Keats. I finally got a response from an Andrew Lebrun who congratulated me on Tias.com now having a Green rating. The problem is, that’s not my site, it’s the name of the antique mall I used to be hosted by! So they’ve got a green rating when they’re the ones who are responsible for the newsletters. McAfee didn’t even check the right site! In the meantime, I’m losing traffic and probably business. And they still haven’t responded to my last email, which was weeks ago.

It really makes you wonder just how many small e-businesses are out there being negatively affected due to this flawed software. I realize mistakes happen, but they should have corrected it immediately instead of ignoring me. At this point I really don’t know what else to do, beside taking on the financial burden of a lawyer.

Needless to say, I don’t think I’ll be recommending their products any time soon.

Sorry to hear that your company is a victim of SiteAdvisor as well but it wouldnt surprise me if there are literally thousands of mis-reported sites. I think the downfall of McAfee’s attempt to inject fear into the average user is the fact that they didnt create the SiteAdvisor site, they purchased it seeing it as a useful marketing tool (spreading undue fears) but then once they had it under their control they never fixed any of the issues (flaws) in the reporting system. In Shane Keats comment above you should note what he stated:

We made a mistake. A negative rating about CoffeeCup.com, made by a SiteAdvisor user, was mistakenly allowed to override Coffeecup.com’s green, safe rating.

Mistakenly? I dont think so. How could this possibly be a mistake? I believe a more accurate statement would be- “We dont really know or understand how the system works but we use it anyways”. Sorry Shane but I dont buy the “Mistake” theory. McAfee is a seemingly reputable internet securities company with literally hundreds of thousands of customers depending and relying on information you provide them. The user that caused the mis-reporting simply and undeniably created an account on SiteAdvisor and used it in a manner which the system was programmed to allow.

When I investigated the CoffeeCup incident and searched for other posts by the user that had reported false information about CoffeeCup the user had literally copy and pasted around 50 different posts that I could find. Although on the SiteAdvisor website their policy indicates that this is not allowed, it happened. To me, this tells me that the site is un-monitored and un-managed. I had also noticed that while one unverified complaint got CoffeeCup a red mark, The SiteAdvisor website and McAfee’s site both with numberous complaints were green. This indicates human manipulation of the facts.

You are correct, the average or not-so-computer-friendly user wont look past the warning and investigate any further. Also in my research into SiteAdvisor I had contacted The Washington Post and spoke with their technical writer who indicated that he had done similar stories on the extremely flawed SiteAdvisor website and reported on other companies who were unduely damaged.

Here is another story of irony concerning SiteAdvisor:
Recently I was working on an ecommerce program and was notified that some users of the software had had their websites hacked. Upon looking deeper it turned out to be cases of XSS-SQL injection. During the investigation I ended up finding this website which is where everything came from IMPORTANT: DO NOT VISIT THIS WEBSITE. YOUR COMPUTER WILL BE COMPROMISED user10.iframe.ru/?s=1. You can Google this URL and see that there is even a warning in the descrition of the site. Even the base URL without the sub-domain is a know malware site that runs a script that will infect your computer with a hackers tool-kit and a backdoor trojan.So you would think that a website that is a well known malware script site that attempts to compromise any user that visits would make the SiteAdvisor red mark list. Well think again, SiteAdvisor has tested this website, or at least they claim they have and have given it a green mark saying everythings ok. I havent forgotten about this story although it has been some time since I have had time to work on it. I have been collecting data and stories slowly and will soon submit a formal complaint to the FTC detailing the workings of SiteAdvisor and the damage they have caused.

I had the same problems with my company:
http://www.smartpctools.com/truth

The company “Smart PC Solutions”, a developer of easy to use solutions for the optimization of your PC, has become the victim of a negative rating on Mcafee’s “SiteAdvisor” just like many other sites, most having no idea that they have received a negative review or why. This causes direct financial losses for many companies but in actuality it redistributes money in favor of McAfee, which sells its anti-virus solutions to terrified users who do not delve very deeply into the details and believe the unjustified ratings.

This is an obvious case of unfair competition via their security software sales promotion by destroying other companies’ goodwill.

Personally I would have to say that this was more than just “a mistake” but I can understand your desire to downplay this. Yes it has become more than obvious to everyone that the system is flawed and that it is insane that 1 person could inflict so much damage with one post. I think it is disturbing to say the least to know that a system that was so insecure and caused so much havoc was deployed by an internet security company.

I have read your explanation of how the reviewers system works as well and had noticed that the user that did this had a rating of 4/9. After looking at his posts I wonder how in fact he ever got a rating that high. It is clear by looking at his posts that he was merely copy and pasting his reviews. For someone in a system to achieve that rank of reliability with that level of quality of posting is pretty scary. By observing this I would have to make the assumption that SiteAdvisor is basically an un-monitored system. Again pretty frightning coming from a well known internet security company.

I am also even more curious to know- How is it that one post gave coffeecup.com the red X yet if you look up siteadvisor.com and mcafee.com they have numerous complaints and bad reviews yet they remain greeen? Looks to me like some manual intervention there.

It appears that the user may have misunderstood a reference to Coffeecup’s Spyware Remover software found on http://www.spywarewarrior.com/rogue_anti-spyware.htm, a well regarded security site.

Coffeecup.com’s rating will publicly change to green within 24 hours. We sincerely regret the error.

To be clear, SiteAdvisor does not rate sites on hunches. SiteAdvisor deploys a variety of automated tests that rate sites for spyware, e-mail practices, exploits and more. We augment these tests with input from the community. (http://www.siteadvisor.com/analysis/reviewers/)

As reviewers leave an increasing number of insightful comments (as voted on by other reviewers), that user’s status increases, and his or her future comments will carry an increasing amount of weight in affecting a site’s overall score. (http://www.siteadvisor.com/analysis/reviewercentral )

We are re-examining our reviewer processes to reduce the likelihood of errors like this occurring in the future.