WOT I would feel naked without it Some users say it is biased. In fact that's not true. While some raters may over react about political/moral/religious positions, the final verdict is an average of all ratings and it is impressively accurate. No other program of this kind comes close to WOT's comprehensive coverage in number of search engines it works on, number of sites rated or number of user reviews.
Tis better to not ever even get to the malicious link than to contain it. Anyhow, I simply use the HTTP scanner in Avast. It has served me well for a long time now.
oops... I forgot one thing. Bitdefender TrafficLight is a worthy proposition as well; I wouldn't use it in place of WOT but they work together like a charm. Just in case someone finds this useful. P.S. I'm talking about the TF Firefox add-on.
I've seen quite a few sites which malicious WOT users defamed. For people not to be biased is simply impossible.
Common sense, never understand how a Link Scanner software can be trusted; let's say that 300 people decide to mark Wilders forums as ''dangerous'' using WOT, McAfee Site Advisor or anything else (it is very plausible since was already made in the past, remember the 4Chan raids). So what's the result ? Wilders forums owner is ~ Snipped as per TOS ~ and try to contact McAfee, they didn't respond so fast, the forum loose credibility and so on...
Hello, McAfee SiteAdvisor and Norton Safe Web. I had WOT installed for a while, but decided I didn't need a third link scanner in the search engines. Regards, Nathan
