There has been a recent increase in the number of posts in the user forum from site owners requesting a re-evaluation of their web site for their Norton Safe Web rating. These requests used to be confined to the Norton Toolbar / Norton Identity Safe board, but now these re-evaluation requests are appearing in other boards as well.
Instructions for the formal appeal process for site owners are posted at https://safeweb.norton.com/help/site_owners. It appears that site owners have discovered they can circumvent that formal process and speed up their appeals by posting in the user forum and asking one of the Gurus to contact Console_Ops directly.
Some of these re-evaluation requests even include active links to sites that still have malicious code. Would it be possible to either create a separate board for these site re-evaluations, or better still, just re-direct these users to the instructions for the formal review process so that site owners can't use the forum to jump the queue?
We're working to automate cleanup of the "moved" threads, so the placeholders don't confuse and clutter other boards
It looks like Sucuri Cleanups 2 has only posted once in 2 months, and that appears to be a result of some backend error that has since been resolved
That said, there are certainly still a lot of site verification requests. We're still working to find a good solution for people, so as few as possible will need to lean on the forums for support. We should definitely be a "last resort" area, and there should be better channels for this type of request
...We don't want to create a separate board for site verifications, as that just invites more and more of them.
Hi Tony_Weiss:
Has there been any further discussion with Console_Ops and the Norton Safe Web team about how we can cut down on the number of site re-evaluation requests by site owners in this forum, or at least make sure these requests are being posted in the Norton Toolbar / Norton Identity Safe board in the first place? The problem seems to be getting worse, not better, and even after these threads are moved the headers still clutter up the board where they were originally posted.
It's been over a year since I raised this issue and frequent flyers like Sucuri Cleanups 2 are still posting their site re-evaluation requests in the NIS/N360/NAV board, Tech Outpost board and other inappropriate areas of the forum. There must be a better way to ensure site owners receive the proper help (e.g., via an automated notification with follow-up instructions) when the automatic verification system fails.
@lmacri, we've been down this road before, for sure. We don't want to create a separate board for site verifications, as that just invites more and more of them. As for the potentially malicious sites, yeah that's a problem. From my end, we'll make sure that those links are broken every time.
floplot:
These users have all tried to do it the proper way but it isn't working. Each one has to be done manually until this gets fixed.
Hi floplot:
Then the Norton Safe Web team should either see that the Automatic verification process is fixed or provide alternate instructions for site owners (e.g., ask them to send a PM directly to Console_Ops to request a re-evaluation). I'd prefer to see the support forum used for it's intended purpose - as a help site for users who have purchased Norton software for their home computers.
At the very least, Norton should be able to create a separate board in the forum where site owner can post their requests for re-evaluation. As I noted in my original post, some of the active links site owners post for their "cleaned" sites can redirect users to webpages that still contain malicious code (see Console_Ops' comment in Securi Cleanup2's thread Re-evaluate www.pebblepave.com.au in the NIS/N360/NAV board for one example), so the amount of clutter these re-evaluation requests create in the Norton Products boards isn't my only concern.
The increase of website owners coming to the Forum is due to the fact that the Automatic verification system is broken. They are not trying to cut in line or trying to get it resolved more quickly. They know about the Safe Web Site for owners. These users have all tried to do it the proper way but it isn't working. Each one has to be done manually until this gets fixed. They have tried to do it the proper way and every one of them are coming back as Failed when they shouldn't be coming back as failed.
I've noticed that too, well they at least try the formal process, but it's not working for them. They are requesting a re-evaluation. They also seem to be coming from very specific sources. I've contacted those sources to find some better ways to manage that interaction. That way, we reduce the clutter to the board to focus on toolbar issues.
