Question about WOT(web of trust)

[jakesteele]

I use firefox browser and I installed their addon WOT(Web of Trust) which is a warning system that lets you know if you are going to a questionable or downright dangerous site. Depending on the sensitivity setting (mine is the 'recommended' setting) when you are about to go on a dubious site, a big black screen comes up with giant, all caps WOT. WOT gives color ratings for sites from green (go or green light) to yellow to orange to red (danger, Will Robinson!). My question is about how accurate and dependable are the ratings when they throw up the various colored screens. When I try to watch movies, in particular, I can't find a decent site I can watch without getting a warning.

What is the consensus about WOT? Good, bad, ugly, right, wrong or indifferent?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WOT:_Web_of_Trust

[Mangetout]

Seems a sound idea, and reliable information in it. I'm sort of surprised there aren't people trying to coerce the ratings there to their own ends.

When I try to watch movies, in particular, I can't find a decent site I can watch without getting a warning.

You mean on Netflix streaming, or on sites showing streamed bootlegs? If the latter, I guess it means WOT works.

[tellyworth]

Originally Posted by Mangetout

I'm sort of surprised there aren't people trying to coerce the ratings there to their own ends.

There are.

[Rubixcube]

The really great thing about WOT isn't the ratings. It's actually the function that stops you from going to a red rated site until you confirm that you want to risk it. In other words if you get redirected or accidentally click on a nasty link WOT will help prevent you from getting malware from visiting those sites.

[t-bonham@scc.net]

Originally Posted by tellyworth

There are.

Indeed there are.
Especially common if you go to sites with iinfo for GLBT people (especially gay youth), womens rights & pro-choice sites, and athiest/agnostic sites. Seems like there are fundamentalist religious groups that have active groups to flag such sites as 'dangerous'.

[tellyworth]

The ones I'm familiar with are paying people to flag their scam sites as harmless. I'll provide a cite for that if needed but I'd rather not advertise it here. I don't know anything about politically motivated manipulation.

[jackdavinci]

I think the google scan works better for the malware aspect of this.

There's some other plugin that lets people comment on the webpage for more nuanced information like bad business practices.

[Tastes of Chocolate]

I use WOT, and I'm happy with it. Having said that, I know that it's not a 100% protection. I use it like Rubixcube, as a way to warn me when I get redirected, or get stupid and click on something without thinking about it.

WOT ratings are based on user ratings.

WOT's unique tools are powered by our global community of millions of users who have rated millions of websites based on their experiences. All websites' reputation ratings in WOT are based on ratings from our users. WOT also uses information from numerous trusted sources, such as phishing and malware blacklists, to provide the WOT community with real time information.

So like any other general population rating system, take it with a gain of salt.