how-to block ads
|
|
Share Topic
 |
 |
|
|
|
 DakAD
@range81-156.btcentra | reply to eburger68
Re: Sunbelt Adjusts WhenU Detections When i said 'WhenU', i was reffering to the downgraded WhenU apps, not savenow; but it bore pointing out.
Does the 'more info' button link to this (or a very similar) page by any chance?
»research.sunbelt-software.com/th···id=14835
If so, for what its worth, I think thats fine as it gives the user the info they need to make their own descision; although I suppose it could benifit from a really succinct summary at the top, and possibly a 'should you keep WhenU wizard' (as someone suggested) for the terminally computer-unsavvy, although that's crossing over from (hopefully constructive) critisism to nit-picking.
Although having said that, it would open the possibility of a third reccomendation -- 'uncertain: check link'.
this could be reserved for apps like WhenU, which are generally OK but have in the recent past been installed without the users permission, and still have trouble uninstalling/come in bundles etc. It could be used to draw to the users attention a potentially unwanted product and help the user descide wether to keep it without actually recomending wether they keep it or not, and reserving the status of 'ignoor' for apps which have almost completely cleaned up their act and are only objectable in a few very limited circumstances/are in a 'probationary' pieriod before being removed completely, etc.
I guess counterspy should probably review its current modus operandi reguarding the ignor/quarenteen recomendation, if only to avoid coming under fire like this again. | |
| DakAD:
You asked:
said by DakAD:
Does the 'more info' button link to this (or a very similar) page by any chance? Yes. There's info within the scan results itself plus a link to more information like you found. See the attached screenshot for an idea of the kind of information presented in the scan results screen. (Btw, that screenshot is of a beta of CS 1.5, however, the scan results screen in the current release version 1.0.29 is very similar.)
said by DakAD:
If so, for what its worth, I think thats fine as it gives the user the info they need to make their own descision; although I suppose it could benifit from a really succinct summary at the top, and possibly a 'should you keep WhenU wizard' (as someone suggested) for the terminally computer-unsavvy, although that's crossing over from (hopefully constructive) critisism to nit-picking. Sunbelt is presently in the process of overhauling its database, which includes not only the boilerplate descriptions of things like threat levels, but also the more detailed summaries and descriptions for individual threats. This is a time consuming process, though.
said by DakAD:
Although having said that, it would open the possibility of a third reccomendation -- 'uncertain: check link'. Truth be told, I've never been a big fan of the "Ignore" label and have recommended changing it to something that more accurately reflects what Sunbelt is trying to do and say with that particular default action, which is:
"We've analyzed this program and assessed it as 'low risk,' so there's no dire need to remove this program if you want to keep it. You may want to remove it, however -- see the information we've provided about the program. If you want to remove it, we can do that, but you'll need to affirmatively elect to do so by changing the action to 'Remove' or 'Quarantine.'"
The trick, of course, is how to compress that "message" or "advice" into a one word label. Not easy.
said by DakAD:
this could be reserved for apps like WhenU, which are generally OK but have in the recent past been installed without the users permission, and still have trouble uninstalling/come in bundles etc. It could be used to draw to the users attention a potentially unwanted product and help the user descide wether to keep it without actually recomending wether they keep it or not, and reserving the status of 'ignoor' for apps which have almost completely cleaned up their act and are only objectable in a few very limited circumstances/are in a 'probationary' pieriod before being removed completely, etc.
I guess counterspy should probably review its current modus operandi reguarding the ignor/quarenteen recomendation, if only to avoid coming under fire like this again. See my discussion of the "Ignore" button just above -- looks like we're thinking along the same lines.
Best,
Eric L. Howes
--
Microsoft MVP
Sunbelt Software Consultant
Spyware Warrior | |
suziPremium
join:2004-05-01 | Eric wrote:
quote:
Truth be told, I've never been a big fan of the "Ignore" label and have recommended changing it to something that more accurately reflects what Sunbelt is trying to do and say with that particular default action, which is:
"We've analyzed this program and assessed it as 'low risk,' so there's no dire need to remove this program if you want to keep it. You may want to remove it, however -- see the information we've provided about the program. If you want to remove it, we can do that, but you'll need to affirmatively elect to do so by changing the action to 'Remove' or 'Quarantine.'"
The trick, of course, is how to compress that "message" or "advice" into a one word label. Not easy
That's my thinking, too. IMO a better option might be to have the recommended action say something like "user choice" or just "choice" and force the user to select one of the 3 options to remove, quarantine, or ignore. If the user wants more information, they can click on the link to the research center page.
--
aka Suzi, Spyware Warrior
Microsoft MVP Windows Security 2005
Sunbelt Software Consultant | |
DakAD
@range81-156.btcentra | reply to eburger68
Truth be told, I've never been a big fan of the "Ignore" label and have recommended changing it to something that more accurately reflects what Sunbelt is trying to do and say with that particular default action ^E Howes
----------------------
I dunno... i think the ignore (oh, thats how its spelt  ) recomendation is useful, but should be for programs that are no longer a problem at all (but are still included incase anyone has an older, objectionable copy) or are on a 'probationary' period; I agree that ignore, as applied to dubiouse apps like WhenU, is a tad misrepresentative of what users should actually do (ie, assess the program themselves and chose wether to keep it or not).
I like suzi's idea of 'user choice'... just that one simple change from 'ignore' --> 'user choice' could do alot, by prompting users to actually check up on the program, rather than disreguard it.
I wonder wether that simple change would satisfy most of the people who have objected to counterspy's reccomendation to 'ignore' WhenU? | |
 SnowymIRC unix.ro UnderNetPremium
join:2003-04-05
Kailua, HI
kudos:5
 ·RoadRunner Cable
 ·Clearwire Wireless
| said by DakAD:
I wonder wether that simple change would satisfy most of the people who have objected to counterspy's reccomendation to 'ignore' WhenU?
I'd consider that change a change for the better.
It would also hamper the ability of a known Ad/SpyWare vendor to put out a few "clean" apps for the only purpose of creating argument & discourse among the AntiSpyWare Community. Divide & conquer is a time honored strategy. | | |
|
|
