Comments on: WOT Keeps You Safe On the Internet, Tops Bloated SiteAdvisor

By: Len

Len — Fri, 02 Apr 2010 16:00:41 +0000

I also found that each attempt to use websites that have little or no affiliation with spam, intrusive ad-ware,spy-ware,or malicious-ware. have been red flagged by W.O.T. and my own experiences have allowed many different abuses on my system, some of which exist as i write this. What I’ve found most offensive is W.O.T. refuses access to almost every site I visit, for which I have no understanding whatsoever. I may be making a grave mistake , but have decided to remove it from my system.

By: horserider

horserider — Sun, 31 Jan 2010 07:34:21 +0000

I prefer using SiteAdvisor, since it’s ratings are based more on automatic tests and not so much on the personal opinion of users. Also you can disable the ugly search box from search settings -> (uncheck) enable secure search box.

By: Pieter

Pieter — Sat, 26 Sep 2009 14:31:53 +0000

It was not Ryan who wrote this article. I did. It was accidentally published under Ryan’s name, but that has been sorted out now.

To answer your question: site ratings are, much like in SiteAdvisor, based on user reviews. Each user has a certain level of trust assigned to him/her to prevent people from gaming the system, so not every review is equal. Additionally, WOT pulls data from some external sources such as SpamCop and hpHosts.

To see how a rating is composed, you might wanna take a look at an example over at [mywot.com] and scroll to the bottom of the page. There, you’ll find both user reviews and computer-driven reviews from the external sources I mentioned earlier.

Also, you might wanna read through WOT’s FAQ if you have further questions about their ranking algorithm.

By: barney

barney — Sat, 26 Sep 2009 12:51:51 +0000

Ryan,

I do not share your view of WOT. I quit using SiteAdvisor when McAfee admitted to re-evaluation delays of three-quarters of a year: bloat I can deal with, but that’s too great a delay for a ‘safety’ evaluatrion. I then tried WOT, although their information page didn’t really provide much information.

I don’t know what WOT’s [re-]evaluation period is supposed to be, but I do know that many of the sites I trust, commercial sites, have a red indicator. WOT seems to have a singular antipathy toward Web marketers, in particular, and nowhere on the site, last time I visited it, could I find any means to challenge WOT’s rating. Nor, in fact, could I find any explanation of how that rating is created. (Mind you, I am not directly involved in the information marketing arena, but I do check Web sites/presentations/sales letters for ideas … some of the Web design is quite innovative.)

Each of the four areas judged by WOT can be highly subjective w/o some published standard of judgment and an established route to challenge such judgment. What are those standards? And who does the judging? Who is responsible – and accountable – for these safety labels? What is the process for challenge/adjudication?

Until such information is readily available – and I do mean readily: I should not have to hunt to find it – and until the easily perceived bias against small Web info-marketing sites is adjusted/justified, WOT will continue to stand for Whim of Trust in my book, and will have no place in my systems.

Before I can believe in a Web of Trust, I need to know in whom I’m placing that trust. Don’t you?