I do not use it because people are not trustworthy enough. I've seen some sites (I forgot which ones!) in the past that were rated extremely bad and they were nothing to be alarmed of. But aside from that, i consider it a great add on for less experienced users.
I don't see WOT as any more dependable than an AV. Missed detections, false positives, recognized too late, etc.
No. I don't think the whole internet can be whitelisted/blacklisted. That's why I use Sandboxie for surfing.
Sandboxie is the best web of trust. Who cares if the site is red or green sandboxie has it in a straight jacket.Back on topic, I agree that the WWW is to large to whitelist and blacklist .IMO the accuracy of them is like target shooting with both eyes closed.
never got me interested, no matter what browser i am using. i let the Chrome sandbox or Firefox NoScript handle the bad stuff, if i would happen to surf to it.
I use it as a secondary opinion but take everything with a grain of salt because there is a significant amount of political bias in the ratings. (People need to learn to separate safety from "ethical").
I had the Firefox addon for the longest time but when it flagged the entire Jotform domain because a few were using forms for phishing, causing a problem for legitimate form users, and making it difficult at best to get off their list, I got rid of it and switched to TrafficLight.
Not now, I used to, checked my account, it's still good. Why did I quit? Ratings are skewed, good sites rated bad, bad sites rated good, sites are being rated based on political content, personal likes or dislikes etc. The guide lines for rating sites are quite clear and simple yet, raters do not follow them. For example, why is Wilder's even rated in the Vendor category?
