What is WOT not?

I see some posts saying be wary of this site or download, but what criteria is used for deciding what is safe and what is just a jaundiced opinion by a disgruntled user?
Excerpt from Wikipedia:
"WOT's ratings measure the overall trust users have in a website in addition to its safety. Therefore, a website that might be safe to visit can still have a bad rating if a large enough portion of the community has indicated lack of trust for the site.

The accuracy of the resulting ratings depends on the accuracy of the submitted opinions. User participation might also lead to biased ratings, especially if only a few users have rated a website. Concerns have been raised that some WOT users may not be knowledgeable enough about the personal data management of a website to provide accurate ratings concerning privacy, for example, which could lead to good sites being rated bad and vice-versa."

Full text available here:

click here

  Kevscar1 16:29 08 Oct 10

For UK sites I have a simple to steps rule.

Does it have full postal addres shown as legally required.
Is the Company registered at Companies House.

If both of these are positive I will deal with them.

Outside UK again I want to see a full address displayed.

WOT is being used as an unofficial guide as to whether sites may be distributing Malware and/or viruses.

  Woolwell 17:42 08 Oct 10

I have WOT but have frequently found it to be unreliable but it does make me think before opening a site it does not recommend.

What it certainly is NOT and can NOT be, is an alternative to an up-todate Antivirus Prog. and a scan of all downloads before opening.

  Woolwell 17:55 08 Oct 10

Hear Hear - and also an alternative to common sense.

  Forum Editor 18:22 08 Oct 10

that far too much reliance is placed on WOT warnings. They are frequently unreliable, as Woolwell says, and you're right when you say there's no substitute for decent anti-virus software and web protection.

I've never used WOT as the arbiter of what's safe and what isn't on the web, and I've managed perfectly well.

  birdface 18:36 08 Oct 10

In the absence of WOT or McAfee Site Advisor or AVG Link Scanner what would you use.
They only give warnings of bad sites and it is up to the individual to choose whether to download from those sites or not.
I would say the Internet is safer with them than without them.
And if you believe it is safer to browse without their use that is entirely up to the individual.
But when you post bad sites on here when trying to help people you are probably doing the opposite.
Myself I would not be without it but that is only my opinion.
Maybe suggest something that is better and we can all give it a try.

I don't use WOT nor do I knowingly post links to "bad sites", but I still say that WOT is no substitute for an up-to-date antivirus program.

  lotvic 18:54 08 Oct 10

WOT is not meant to be a substitute for an up-to-date antivirus program.
It is just a guide based on user's experiences.

Frankly, I don't see the point in relying on "users' experiences" or perhaps their incompetence in adding comments to this site (WOT) to make me more OR less able to make a judgement on whether a site is "bad".

This thread is now locked and can not be replied to.

Nintendo Switch review: Hands-on with the intuitive modular console and its disappointing games…

1995-2015: How technology has changed the world in 20 years

New Corel ParticleShop plugin now available: 11 new brushes & 6 new brush packs

Apple AirPods review: Apple's beautiful new Bluetooth headphones bring true intelligence to…