At the time I submitted my site for testing with McAfee's Site Advisor as I noticed my site received a bad review as a spam/scam site. See here .

  1. From a development perspective, how important are things like this? I know from a user perspective, I stay away from the sites that have a bad rap in Site Advisor.
  2. The bad review was not even related to my site content, but was given due to my registrar(think it's Enom). Now I have to question if anyone knows if it's normal for sites to be rated according to the registrar and not content?
  3. This question is not so important but it interests me that after a year, my reply to my review has been ignored. I have to ask if it's even worth worrying anymore about this?
  • Google "demand media spam", and you'll quickly see why people dislike eNom and boycott them, or even boycott sites registered through them. You are unfortunately an innocent bystander unaware of eNom's affiliations, but it may be wise to just consciously avoid shady registrars in the future. It's worth the effort to support a healthier/more useful web community, and it'll head off the risk of any such incidences in the future. Apr 22, 2012 at 18:46
  • can you recommend a better registrar? Apr 22, 2012 at 20:02
  • 2
    A lot of registrars participate in unsavory practices like doing business with spammers and domain squatters, but Godaddy and eNom (coincidentally the first and second largest registrars) are really the main ones that have controversial practices/ties. Your chances of being slandered for choosing other registrars is pretty slim. But if you want to choose a good registrar to do business with, Gandi.net is one with a particularly good reputation. I personally use DreamHost's registrar (New Dream Networks), but any registrar run by a reputable web host should be on the up and up. Apr 22, 2012 at 20:14

1 Answer 1


Since this question wasn't answered I figured I'd add my thoughts in case anyone else stumbles upon this question.

  1. If it is bad from a user perspective it should be bad from a developer perspective as well. Why spend time and energy working on something that many people will not even bother to look at when the warning pops up?
  2. I have never heard of a site being given a bad review because of the registrar. It doesn't make much sense to do it that way, especially with a well-known registrar. It seems like it would be the same as blocking a phone number based on who the carrier was, instead of who owned the phone number. I have several sites, and my host uses eNom as the "sponsoring registrar" and I have not noticed anything weird as a result.
  3. As long as you want people to visit your site I would continue to worry about this. As a result of this there is a big red-flag above your door for many users that attempt to visit, and it would cause the majority of them to leave.
  • I thought I would like to add that it took over two years for Mcafee SA to validate my site! I think they took action after I wrote to them and said I would boycott all their products if they were 2 years behind on things like security. I got a green flag now. So for me this issue has been resolved. May 2, 2012 at 8:35
  • Good to hear :) May 2, 2012 at 21:02

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.