CertGuard doesn't contain 100% correct informations

Oh man! Ad-blocking software has been detected! :'(

This website is run by the community, for the community... and it needs advertisements in order to keep running. Blocking our ads means your killing our stats!
Please disable your ad-block, or become a premium member to hide all advertisements and this notice.

Hi,

I am really bit disappointed with certguard because there information is not 100% correct as some of the vendors in their list are not 100% legit. I can't give all blame to certguard becuase they can't check each and every prepkit of one vendor.

For example, Proprofs is legit on certguard website but i am not agreed with that becuase last month i was studying for exam 1Z0-147 and was using oracle books for prep but i came across that proprofs website which has alot of practise questions. Before trying the practise exam i just copied and paste few questions in google and found alot of links of braindumps website containing same questions. (Thanks God i didn't use that website)

I emailed to certguard and also try to contact with proprofs web team but never got a reply from them.

Thats just a one example.

Thanks

 

Oh man! Ad-blocking software has been detected! :'(

This website is run by the community, for the community... and it needs advertisements in order to keep running. Blocking our ads means your killing our stats!
Please disable your ad-block, or become a premium member to hide all advertisements and this notice.

As far as I understand that the people who write the exams on proprofs are just members of the site not professional exam writers, so it is inevitable that you would get someone posting real questions on there.

So I don't think proprofs should be mentioned as a BD site on certguard but they should maybe be warned about letting any member putting questions down

 

Nobody's perfect, but you have to take your hat off to Certguard for making the effort.
Certguard do seem to come under constant pressure from those companies that feel they should be listed amongst the dumpers, or shall we say they resent the loss of profits that they suffer because of it.
So Certguard need to be wary of anyone who contacts them saying, hey, that's wrong. I imagine they've got their own way of verifying these things.

That being said, Certguard is not an official body and should be used on the basis that it's there to advise in a helpful way, but isn't necessarily gospel.

When you say that's one example, do you have others or is that in fact the only one?

 

There is one more vendore which i don't feel is 100% legit but i wouldn't mention them here until i am 100% sure.

 

Certguard is actually a member of this forum, so you could always PM him if you have any concerns...

 

Thanks for letting me know jonny, i didn't know that i was trying to contact them through their main website.

 

If you PM me the information, I can send it to Robert @ Certguard's private e-mail address.

 

Certguard do put a little "Is this classification still correct?" link at the top of each report, which is acknowledgement that they aren't 100% accurate 100% of the time.

Also, there are two types of site which Certguard label as "Braindumps"
1) Actual exam questions
2) Illegal distributors of copyrighted material.
I've seen one set of questions from type 2 (my friend sent me them in good faith, long after I'd passed the exam I may add) and they were a mish-mash of Meyers, Sybex and some I didn't recognise. It's perfectly possible that the questions you found on BD sites were illegally copied by people from type 2, trawling the internet to bulk out their "Training material".

One possible explanation anyway. And props to Certguard for being almost 100% right almost 100% of the time.

 

I disagree... Regardless whether you think the writers are professional exam writers or not, that does not give them the right to post real questions on there.

Maybe, if they have posted a very similar question, fair enough, could just be coincidence, but the exact same question? Bit more than a coincidence imo.