Experience in GSI for rating files !, XP bar Options

[Kamille]

Hello,

I just made an update on the GSI Website


Now, register users 'll see the XP bar on the top of the homepage and report.
The XP bar represents the experience you have for rating files :
 2009_04_03_183953.png ( 50.13K ) Number of downloads: 251



So, as you probably already know, the rating function gives you the possibility to give your opinion on a specific file (10 stars equal no worry for this file, few stars equal suspicious or infected file...).

Like I explained in this post, the experience will give you the possibility to increase your level (so your coefficient of rating ...).

Of course, some rules will apply in order to "control" those rates:
- to be applicable, a rate on a file must have been made also by 2 users (including GSI bot) but this is able to change...
- to be applicable, the files must not have already an average rate of 10/10.
- good rates will give you experience (10 points) and this will help you to reach the next level.
- bad rates will remove you XP (50 points) ... but you'll have the possibility to fix your "bad" rates by clicking on the "My rankings" -> "Bad rankings" tabs on the homepage.
- in the homepage "My rankings" -> "Unrated files", users have the possibility to rate files from rates made by other users in order to win experience easily and also in order to check other rates ...
 2009_04_07_111538.png ( 42.38K ) Number of downloads: 134



Current levels are :
level 2 -> 500 points
level 3 -> 800 points (+500)
level 4 -> 1400 points (+500+800)
level 5 -> 2300 points (+500+800+1400)
level 6 -> 5000 points (+500+800+1400+2300)
and maybe more ...




So, to sum up, for increasing your rating experience, you can :
- rate files directly into the GSI 4.0 reports
- rate files already rated by other users using the "My rankings" -> "Unrated files" tab on the homepage of GSI parser
- update your bad rates using the "My rankings" -> "Bad rankings" tab



Important notes:
- It sounds like a game but it's not really a game The aim is to give you more power on rates and also to teach you how to detect safe files than infected files.
- Rate as much as files than you can !



This post has been edited by Kamille: 7.04.2009 13:47

Reason for edit: added screenshots and important notes

[ScottC]

Would having the ability to mark installed programs as incompatible also be useful?

[phr3n1c]

Or marking possible incompatible files as compatible

[Whizard]

Bump all moderators to have a higher impact on rating

[Caos]

Bump all moderators to have a higher impact on rating

[Jowi]

Current levels are :
level 2 -> 500 points
level 3 -> 800 points (+500)
level 4 -> 1400 points (+500+800)
level 5 -> 2300 points (+500+800+1400)
level 6 -> 5000 points (+500+800+1400+2300)
and maybe more ...

Hi Kamille,

Level 7 is hard - 45000, need many beer to made it.

[Kamille]

Hi Kamille,

Level 7 is hard - 45000, need many beer to made it.

[Caos]

Yes, level 7 is "Mision Imposible"

[Kamille]

Yes, level 7 is "Mision Imposible"

Normally the level 7 should exist... Actually, I created this level because of a guy in KL French Support which reached level 6 after 2/3 days only ))

Anyway, I think that level 6 is enough to make the difference on rankings

[Jowi]

puuuuh, level 8 is ........ (75000) That´s only a protection for romain.

[Knight Captain]

With all the new people from the Forum signing up to use the Parser and rate files, my Bad Rankings are through the roof. Shouldn't my Level 5 mean my rates weigh more than two people who are Level 1s? I've got 60 (yes, SIXTY) bad rankings for things that show up as clear when I check the list.

If you comment a Bad Ranking, shouldn't it go away too?

Also, I cannot look at the pages of Bad Rankings I now have, only the main list.

This post has been edited by Knight Captain: 20.04.2010 23:04

[lapin]

I became lvl2 and i still need 500 for lvl3? Shouldn't it be 800?

[antikythera]

With all the new people from the Forum signing up to use the Parser and rate files, my Bad Rankings are through the roof. Shouldn't my Level 5 mean my rates weigh more than two people who are Level 1s? I've got 60 (yes, SIXTY) bad rankings for things that show up as clear when I check the list.

If you comment a Bad Ranking, shouldn't it go away too?

Also, I cannot look at the pages of Bad Rankings I now have, only the main list.

There does seem to be a flaw in this ranking system. let me explain.

I submitted a report for the QSCAN issue in the beta section and was not looking for feedback from other users but seemingly got it anyway.

I have 5 bad rankings because on my system I have a genuine copy of an adult entertainment product called virtua girl. I gave the 5 unknown flagged files a 10/10 because they came from a known source and have not given me any problems in over 12 months of usage.

another user commented and ranked them as harmful siting malware with system popup adverts etc. This gave me 5 bad ranks. Their reason is sound but misplaced in this instance as the software was knowingly installed by me and as I have already stated is the genuine article from totem entertainment. So I know for a fact the files are clean.

there are no adverts or systemwide effects from the software and to date nothing has been siphoned from my accounts or my ID stolen. So I think it is safe to therefore say they are clean. KAV 2010 was installed when I initially loaded the software too and it passed virus free.

There are rogue copies out there of course which do what the other user suggests. So how do I get the bad rating removed for my clean files? I have put comments on them for your review.

The rating system is interesting though and I hope you can iron out niggles like this in the next few builds.

[dawgg]

The rating system is interesting though and I hope you can iron out niggles like this in the next few builds.

I personally think the problem is with users who need to iron out niggles with their ratings.

... Some go for herding behaviour where they rate a similar number to what others or the GSI bot has rated.
Others sometimes rate numbers 4-6. If there is that much uncertainty about the file, they should not be rating the file, as it is a useless rate and they don't know whether it is malicious or not.

[antikythera]

I personally think the problem is with users who need to iron out niggles with their ratings.

... Some go for herding behaviour where they rate a similar number to what others or the GSI bot has rated.
Others sometimes rate numbers 4-6. If there is that much uncertainty about the file, they should not be rating the file, as it is a useless rate and they don't know whether it is malicious or not.

Agree on that point too. Which makes the entire process somewhat unhelpful as people are despite the post in this thread explaining the system treating it as a competition to see who can get the highest XP score and rating stuff because it is there. Not because they know for a fact whether it is malicious or not.

Looking through the parser lists today I also see a lot of ratings made without comments to back them up. So how can they be gauged as accurate or not? If people are forced to make a comment as well to back up their rating they are surely more likely to think over what they are putting on a file assessment.

I think the options should be clear cut. two buttons. infected or clean and a forced comment box which has to be completed with factual answers. percentages are way too vague.

[dawgg]

Looking through the parser lists today I also see a lot of ratings made without comments to back them up. So how can they be gauged as accurate or not? If people are forced to make a comment as well to back up their rating they are surely more likely to think over what they are putting on a file assessment.

And I agree, just made the suggestion earlier on - http://forum.kaspersky.com/index.php?showtopic=185313

I think the options should be clear cut. two buttons. infected or clean and a forced comment box which has to be completed with factual answers. percentages are way too vague.

IMO, something like Malicious, likely malicious, likely clean, Clean (or 1, 3, 8, 10).
On some occasions I have files which are not confirmed malicious by any sources, but I consider likely to be malicious, as the time/date modified matches or is very similar to a time/date of a malicious file - indicating it has some involvement... although at the same time, malware sometimes (albeit very rarely) can drop non-malicious files also.
Also sometimes I rate them as likely malicious if they have a suspicious filename (known to be malware or spoofing MS files).

[richbuff]

Attention all 5 raters:

Please stop rating files as 5.

This is still happening, after several polite requests.

It's getting old having to continue to explain to new forum users via PM why benign files are showing up in the Untrusted tab of their GSI reports.

[antikythera]

Attention all 5 raters:

Please stop rating files as 5.

This is still happening, after several polite requests.

It's getting old having to continue to explain to new forum users via PM why benign files are showing up in the Untrusted tab of their GSI reports.

good call. unfortunately i think it will fall on deaf ears

[richbuff]

good call. unfortunately i think it will fall on deaf ears

We have a newbie who has insisted on continuously and repetitively rating obviously clean files as 5, and lower, despite my repetitive pleas directed at him to desist.
Unfortunately, in some cases, it is not the hearing organ that is the cause of the problem.



You have posted a message with more angst than this board allows. Please reduce the angst you've added to the message.