Thank you for being a valued part of the CNET community. As of December 1, 2020, the forums are in read-only format. In early 2021, CNET Forums will no longer be available. We are grateful for the participation and advice you have provided to one another over the years.


CNET Support

General discussion

Is a safe site?

Nov 27, 2010 3:29AM PST

Is a safe site to buy from?
And are the products authentic?
I am also curious as to how they manage to sell software at lower prices than the actual company, Adobe for instance?


Discussion is locked

- Collapse -
This can be easy.
Nov 27, 2010 3:08PM PST

Just look for the signs such as download only software sales of products that have no current electronic delivery.

Some will do business with such places but it's like handing a thief your credit card.

- Collapse -
YES is a safe site.
Dec 20, 2010 11:17AM PST

YES is a safe site. They have direct downloads right from the Adobe site so therefore it is genuine software and they have been in business since 1994. They use AlertPay which just like PayPal does not give out your credit card number or other information. So you are totally safe.

- Collapse -
Dec 20, 2010 1:26PM PST

If you can correct the WOT and other ratings you might do better.

Today it looks like the usual thieves.

- Collapse -
YES is a safe site
Dec 20, 2010 4:54PM PST

That WOT is a scam site trying to extort lots of money from merchants to have a good rating and harvest victims personal information without their permission. It is just about out of business now and maybe completely out of business the time you read this. If you just add the word Scam on to the end of that WOT Sites name you will see the truth that WOT is a scam.

- Collapse -
YES is a safe site
Dec 20, 2010 5:20PM PST

Bob or as your user name R. Proffitt just because you are on the Internet does not mean you can not be found out and be sued for libel. The company has been in business since 1994 and has used this Domain name for about 10 years as any Domain search will show. Bad companies do not stay in business this long. Unless you can prove you were a real customer which I am sure you are not, please don't be like a Supermarket tabloid telling ridiculous untrue stories. In the real world when you see a crazy person yelling out loud with a sign on the street the "World is Ending Now" etc. people just disregard these kooks. But these kooks have found a home on the Internet because people can not see or hear who they are dealing with.

- Collapse -
So you have some connection with this web site?
Dec 21, 2010 3:47AM PST

Glad you tell us now.


- Collapse -
Direct downloads?
Dec 21, 2010 3:46AM PST

I didn't see those. All I saw were 'Add to cart - pay by AlertPay" for Adobe products.

Point me in the right direction.

About WOT. Your comments about it surprise me. WOT is based on user experience who give web sites their own ratings. "WOT ratings are powered by a global community of millions of trustworthy users who have rated millions of websites based on their experiences".

You seem to have a different view. Justify that.


- Collapse -
Mark I do not have to Justify anything.
Dec 22, 2010 7:47PM PST

All I can tell you is the truth the Adobe software downloads right from Adobe. That WOT Site charges a lot of money for businesses to display their logo. Companies like Tigerdirect they gave a good rating to when they have had serious Government Actions against them. You be the judge if you can trust WOT ratings Shocked
As of October 26, 2010, Case #09-65667CA239, Attorney General Bill McCollum today announced a settlement with a Delaware company, Systemax, and its subsidiaries, Tigerdirect, and Onrebate, over allegations the companies failed to pay advertised rebates to consumers. Tigerdirect, Inc. sells computers and other electronic equipment, and rebates on purchases are processed by, Inc. Consumer complaints reported that the rebate program was very difficult to navigate and often led to consumers giving up their rights to rebates.
The Attorney General's Economic Crimes Division began investigating the companies in April 2007, after receiving numerous complaints from consumers. The original complaint, filed in August of 2008, alleged that Systemax, through Tigerdirect, offered and advertised products with rebate incentives, falsely representing to consumers they would receive the rebates in approximately 8-10 weeks.
The settlement specifically requires Systemax and its subsidiaries to process rebates in the time advertised and to initiate procedures that allow for the proper handling of rebate submissions.
Additionally, pursuant to the settlement agreement, in which the defendants admitted no wrongdoing, the Attorney General's Office will dismiss the complaint and will be reimbursed $200,000 in attorneys' fees and costs. Defendants will not only ensure that proper rebates have been made to all eligible complainants, but will also donate $100,000 to the Florida Alliance of Boys and Girls Clubs. It is intended that these funds be used by local Boys and Girls Clubs to purchase computer equipment.
A copy of the Settlement Agreement is available online at:$file/TigerDirectSettlement.pdf

On November 4, 1999, case C3903, the Federal Trade Commission issued a Decision & Order against Tiger Direct for violations of the Pre-sale Availability Rule, the Disclosure Rule and the Warranty Act. Without admitting any wrongdoing, Tiger Direct agrees to 1) Not represent that it provides On-Site Service unless all limitations and conditions that apply are disclosed; 2) fulfill obligations under the warranty within a reasonable period of time after receiving notice from the consumer; and 3) shall cease and desist from failing to make warranty text available for examination prior to sale, failing to disclose what is not covered under any given warranty or the procedures needed to have warranty work accomplished and failing to disclose that certain states may give the consumer legal rights in addition to those provided by the warranty. For further information regarding this order, you may contact the FTC at 877-382-4357. This order expires year 2019.

- Collapse -
Sorry, but I don''t read ...
Dec 22, 2010 7:52PM PST

anything about WOT in post. It's mostly about Tiger Direct. What's the relevance of that for the current discussion?


- Collapse -
Interesting, but
Dec 22, 2010 8:02PM PST

nothing to do with this discussion.

What is your connection with ?

Where WOT records Customer Reviews of their visits and experiences with web sites, I would suggest that the owners of the website above would be keen to solve the problem of their current poor ratings.

Remember, we were asked the question. We can only go on what we find.


- Collapse -
WOT is a Scam
Dec 23, 2010 12:52AM PST

I know this company has a A- rating with the BBB. I am thinking some of you work for WOT since very few normal people even know what it is. This WOT has become a Scam and not be trusted.

WOT and its head CEO Esa Suurio is ripping people off of their most precious commodity - their identity. Each and everyday his unsuspecting followers use the internet, his leech program sends back all of that information back to the mother ship. Every website they visit, every form they fill out, every password they type in. It's like spyware.

The truth is just starting to come out now about this organization.

WOT's Extortion Scheme
October 7th, 2009

Recently on the WOT blog, a new program was announced to "?earn some income." It involves "allowing" websites that have earned a good rating with WOT's community of users to place a shield on their site indicating such.

Although reputable services like the BBB already offer such a service with accreditation, WOT is undoubtedly going to use this as a way to extort businesses. Whereas the BBB is upfront with how they accredit businesses and use a fair, open and responsible system to examine companies, WOT simply pawns off the responsibility on users and can therefore easily manipulate its ratings. So if a company doesn't want to pay, they get a poor rating. If they do pay, they get a nice shiny shield on their site. If anyone questions the poor rating, WOT simply says it's because their "users" rated it poorly on their own.

It's quite the racket.

WOT Elaborate Scheme to Defraud Millions out of Millions
August 3rd, 2009

When launched in 2006 by Timo Ala-Kleemola and Sami Tolvanen, few people could have seen the scam the website (Web of Trust) would eventually become although the roots for the scheme were firmly laid back then. With one singular goal in mind, Timo and Sami set out to be the next dot com billionaires - they wanted money and didn't care who they hurt to get it.

From the get-go Timo and Sami designed their system to be the perfect stealth spyware. It was spyware people would gladly invite into their homes, and continue to willingly feed it personal information because it would be disguised as "scam detection software". They had seen enough movies to realize that the best con games convince the person to willingly give up their money rather than deceitfully take it.

They concocted a scheme by which users would "rate" websites as either good or bad. The rating would then be transmitted back to Timo and Sami's servers and users wouldn't think anything is wrong with that - after all they chose to send the information. Trick is that piggybacking along with the rating would be data scraped from the user's hard drive. They had dreamed up the perfect scam.

So Timo and Sami set off to design their spyware and ironically dub it the "Web of Trust". The programming was the easy part, it was more difficult to hatch a process that would keep people coming back to the site again and again, continually feeding Timo and Sami their passwords, banking information, and browsing habits.

That's when they invented the "reputation system". The more sites a user rates, the higher their reputation goes, which fills the user with a sense of self importance and a desire to rate more sites and raise their reputation even higher. It keeps them coming back and sending up to the minute information from the user. It's an ingenious scam to continually milk the same user over and over.

Timo and Sami launch the site in 2006 and rope in their first marks, making a fair amount of money, but not in the amounts they initially hoped for; not to mention they don't have the connections to sell a lot of the information they're amassing. That's when "serial entrepreneur" Esa Suurio enters the company with new avenues and a rolodex full of contacts for Timo and Sami to exploit.

When Esa came on board the program had reached a certain level of popularity where many companies were starting to feel the pinch and began contacting the Web of Trust offices about removing the harmful information from their website. It was at this juncture that Timo, Sami and Esa realized they had discovered a whole new revenue stream.

The group would then charge companies large sums of money to remove negative ratings and posts from their message board. So long as they had millions of users everyday posting negative comments and dolling out bad reviews like candy, they would have an endless stream of revenue - especially if they charge for each instance that needs removal.

Of course all of this would continually need to be done under the cloak of legitimacy. Magazine articles would be lined up with top computer publications touting the "safety" and "protection" offered by the Web of Trust. Like a good pick-pocket they were distracting people on the left while robbing them on the right. The reporters believed the company's legitimacy because the operations they were shown were, in fact, on the up and up. That's the beauty of the system. It doesn't matter that there's all types of unethical and illegal activity going on in the back office so long as the front office looks clean and spiffy.

The scam continues today, although cracks are starting to show. Recently CEO Esa Suurio announced he was ditching the company, leaving them holding the bag. It's just become too obvious that the company should not still be afloat without an obvious revenue stream, and Esa is probably worried that he'll be indicted - so it's best to cut and run now.

That leaves original founders Timo Ala-Kleemola and Sami Tolvanen as the sole originating conspirators. Although it's entirely possible they too will soon leave to deflect their own culpability in the matter.

- Collapse -
Misinformation and shilling...
Dec 24, 2010 11:10AM PST

Hello ceoartie1,

Might that stand for Arthur Schwartz, President & CEO of Perfect Shareware, the company behind Perhaps that's just a coincidence, like your email address referencing the company's website or you choosing to only post on CNET to recommend/defend that website.

Ah well, let's run down the key points:

1.) Adobe software is "try & buy," meaning anyone can access the downloads and provide such links to others. Thus, the argument that a company is legitimate because it provides such a link is a falacy. The onus is on proving that the product key is legitimate and being distributed in accordance with a licensing agreement with Adobe, something you've made no attempt to do here thus far.

2.) Using a (second-class) service such as AlertPay speaks to the security of the payment transaction, not the legitimacy of the company or the products that they sell. In fact, all fraudulent online stores accept payment via one or more payment services, including even PayPal. Again, the onus is on proving that the product key is legitimate and being distributed in accordance with a licensing agreement with Adobe, something you've made no attempt to do here thus far.

3.) Bernard Madoff, sentenced to 150 years in prison last year, swindled investors out of $18 billion over the course of over 20 years. That incident alone disproves your claim that "Bad companies do not stay in business this long."

4.) WOT's website explicitly states that website ratings cannot be bought; they are based on user ratings as well as computer- and human-generated analysies of the sites in question. And over the past four years, WOT has become both well known and well respected, standing along side SiteAdvisor (McAfee) and Norton Safe Web (Symantec) as one of the top sites/services for gauging a website's reputation. You offered no evidence here to dispute that.

5.) You cited a lawsuit against Systemax for seemingly no reason as it does not pertain to WOT or Perfect Shareware. It only serves to distract others from the topic at hand. Further, you did not source the one quote regarding WOT you did provide, a quote that happened to be a conspiracy theory that was spammed across the web by its anonymous author.

6.) WOT does not collect everything the user types, be it passwords or Christmas wish lists. WOT only collects the URLs of the websites it provides a rating of, and only for as long as the user leaves WOT enabled. That is less of a security/privacy risk than Google Chrome auto-submitting to Google all text you enter into the browser's address bar. Your claim is blatantly false and completely unsubstantiated.

That said, it's obvious to me that you are looking to condemn WOT, anyone that supports WOT, and anyone that questions, all without any factual support. To prevent the spread of any further misinformation, prevent the further unauthorized duplication of other people's texts, and to prevent further posts that appear to be shilling on your part, I am locking this thread.