Clues To Deceptive-Misleading Websites - Brokerblogger

When your looking for clues (click on cartoon to animate) as to the integrity of a website and the people behind it, here are a few ways to do it.

First, I believe that online TRUST, CREDIBILITY, and SAFETY can all be affected through COMMERCIAL and INFORMATION GATHERING ways, further broken down into INTENTIONAL, and UNINTENTIONAL categories.  Proving intent can be a challenge, so I've learned to be a cynical optimist in giving the website the benefit of the doubt, at first, before it passes the test of time.  However, there are some clues and new tests that can be done to see if the site deserves even that much respect.  Let's look at a study of online user behavior in regard to a website's "credibility". 

In the "Key Findings" area of CR's WebWatch research report on "How Do People Evaluate a Web Site's Credibility?" it says:  "We found that when people assessed a real Web site's credibility they did not use rigorous criteria,..."  It goes on to say:  "The data showed that the average consumer paid far more attention to the superficial aspects of a site, such as visual cues, than to its content."  While there are many "visual cues", the "visual clues" of where and how a website is encouraging you to click next in the "Clickstream" along the "Conversion Funnel" can give impressive evidence, in my opinion, of the overall credibility of the site (bad or good).

An example of this would be a site that says "It's Free!" on their home page, then encourages you to click on a "tour" to see only part of the information that is inside their site.  The tour ends by saying "Free to Join" (vs. "It's Free!), and a voice says "What have you got to lose?".  This particular site's tour has icons of two widely-used online "trust" authority sites that issued certification badge icons (Truste & BBBOnLine).  Ben Edelman has a "working draft" of his "Adverse Selection in Online "Trust" Certifications" which indicates that some of these "trust" authorities "..issue certifications without substantial verification of the actual trustworthiness of the recipients."  The BBBOnLine depends on consumer complaints to police businesses, so if people don't complain enough, then that business gets to keep the seal of trust certificate.  The BBBOnLine also has a backlog of applicants, and a slow approval process.  This means that their "authority seal" may be missing from many good companies.

The site then encourages you to give them some non-personally identifiable information, and then shows you their "free to register" page which asks for personally identifiable info with a disclaimer at the bottom that says "By clicking on the above "Submit" button, you are agreeing to our Terms of Service."  You could say that the site owners may have been given professional advice on "Funneling Customers Into Your Site" (DISCLAIMER - This "conversion funnel" technique is not a bad thing in itself, and can actually help consumers have a better online experience.  The devil is in the details, as with anything.  Also, I have the greatest respect for Bryan Eisenberg's knowledge of this process, and I have no reason to believe he would encourage anything unethical, deceptive, or misleading in any way.)   

However, back to this example site where it doesn't tell you what and who they DO charge money for BEFORE THEY GET YOUR ("P.I.I.") PERSONALLY IDENTIFIABLE INFORMATION (that includes e-mail address, year of birth, and possible "maiden name", or your name before you may have changed it).  They have a "Privacy Policy" that is worded like most are, which actually gives them the right to give your personal information to "third parties", which increases your risk no matter what precautions are taken. They can also sell their company and not be responsible for what happens to your P.I.I. after the sale. The Choice Point Debacle of lost or stolen P.I.I. can happen too. 

What is sad, is that if you just do a Google, Yahoo, or MSN search for this company's website name ".com", and put "complaints" after it, you get loads of consumer generated content in the form of complaints, mostly (along with some happy customer reviews, who obviously didn't mind being mislead compared to their perceived benefit received).  The complaints were about "auto-renewal" fees agreed to buried in their TOS, poor or non-existent reciprocal communication with the company, charges to you or a friend in sending messages, some SPAM e-mails, and pop-up ads appearing in other searches after agreeing to their TOS.

The fact of the matter is that we are all in such "information overload", and are pressed for time that we do "Skimming and Scanning" of TOS and Privacy Policies in many cases, and some website owners know and count on that fact.  Even with consumer fraud, educational websites like "Consumer Fraud Reporting" that warn of "hype" like "What have you got to lose?", and "Hidden Charges" until they've got your personal information, most consumers go down the "conversion funnel" and give personal info without even doing a search for "complaints" on a website.  My last post on "The FTC's OnGuardOnline.gov Website " promotes the FTC's new motto of "Stop * Think * Click" (I even put it on the Borkerblogger blog sidebar).  What irony it is to see their "About Us" website page showing "The FTC maintains OnGuardOnline.gov with significant contributions from partners on this page."  Then it lists "Truste.org" as a partner!   

There is even a test that consumers can access now before exploring and using a website.  It is called "SiteAdvisor.com" by McAfee, and Ben Edelman is an advisor for them.  Consumers can download "SiteAdvisor" software or just "Explore on your own" by entering a site address they want to check out.  But, SiteAdvisor is still young and does not have a lot of complete information on many websites, as I found out when I searched for the site in my example above.  It returned "We tested this site and didn't find any significant problems." with "less than 1 e-mail per month", "Testing 2 downloads", "This site links mostly to sites which our tests show to be safe.", "one pop-up" ad with a "qnsr.com" third party cookie, and no reviewer comments or reviews even though they look at "Bad shopping experiences" as part of their overall evaluation.  Oh well, McAfee just acquired SiteAdvisor on 4/5/06 as noted in "Taking SiteAdvisor to the Next Level".

The bottom line is for consumers to "STOP - THINK - RESEARCH - THEN CLICK" before giving personal or payment card information or even just downloading something! 

12/14/06 UPDATE - The FTC responded to Commercial Alert's petition, and Gary Ruskin posted "FTC Gives “Giant Christmas Present” to P&G, Word of Mouth Marketing Industry".  Further discussion on this is at ProBlogger's "Will Affiliate Disclosures Become Required by Law?"

Animated image courtesy of www.artie.com.