Why do you hate WOT?

Discussion in 'other software & services' started by Joxx, Apr 11, 2014.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Joxx

    Joxx Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2012
    Posts:
    1,126
    I took the idea for this thread from a comment
    GrafZepplin is not alone in his hate
    it's common for WOT to provoke this reaction,
    but why exactly?

    personally I've been using it for 5 years,
    and only found 3 times what I consider to be false positives
    I also find the written comments to be useful,
    even if many of them leave to be desired

    but the negative positions, sometimes violent,
    must have a basis

    so,
    for you, WOT haters out there, give us your rationale,
    why do you hate WOT?
     
  2. TairikuOkami

    TairikuOkami Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2005
    Posts:
    2,509
    Location:
    Slovakia
    WOT is the point of WOT anyway? It will only tell you, that a webpage might be infected and if you want to go there you will regardless of that, besides, just because the webpage is marked red, it does not mean, that you will get infected. By the way, browsers like Chrome warn you about possible bad webpages, I actually get 2 warnings, I consider it annoying, it can not be turned off. Yandex integrated it into the browser. People do not care about it!
     

    Attached Files:

  3. Kirk Reynolds

    Kirk Reynolds Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2011
    Posts:
    224
    I don't hate it, or even dislike it. I just don't have any use for it. It basically exposes human nature. You can't count on the users being objective and neutral when rating a site, and you also can't count on them being very knowledgeable either. It's a flawed popularity contest waiting to be abused, full of both openly biased opinions and ulterior motives , kind of like a reputation system for members on a forum.
     
  4. ArchiveX

    ArchiveX Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2014
    Posts:
    1,016
    I simply use WOT.
    I've experienced a few FPs.

    No hard feelings.
     
    Last edited: Apr 13, 2014
  5. pegas

    pegas Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 22, 2008
    Posts:
    2,016
    They deserve more respect, imho.
     
  6. xxJackxx

    xxJackxx Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2008
    Posts:
    4,050
    Location:
    USA
    It is an inaccurate waste of time based on the opinions of the general public. I have found it way to easy to have a group of people get together and manipulate the rating for a site.
     
  7. Daveski17

    Daveski17 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2008
    Posts:
    8,029
    Location:
    Lloegyr
    I'm not a WOT hater either, AFAIK doesn't WOT prevent scripts running on a page it flags as red? I view it as merely another tool in the perpetual fight against malware. I have tried to responsibly comment on sites with it. One of the main reasons that I run Flager in Maxthon is because of the WOT scores.
     
  8. Impet

    Impet Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 5, 2013
    Posts:
    895
    Because dog lovers rate cat pages dangerous. o_O
     
  9. vojta

    vojta Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2010
    Posts:
    830
    I don't hate WOT, I hate people who misuse it. I once wrote here that some religious zealots there keep labeling adult sites as been malware infected, someone replied that there are also people that do the same with religious sites. And there is always all those 'me too' guys that keep on repeating what they have read elsewhere and that amplify false positives to the point of making legitimate sites look like the devil. So, WOT is sometimes like a playground for dunces.
     
  10. Page42

    Page42 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2007
    Posts:
    5,829
    Location:
    Last Breath Farm
    I always understood the name Web of Trust to be wonderfully ironic.
     
  11. FreddyFreeloader

    FreddyFreeloader Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2013
    Posts:
    527
    Location:
    Tejas
    I prefer the Safe Preview extension for Chrome, which uses several services to check websites - it uses:
    - Google Advisory
    - McAfee
    - Norton Safe Web
    - WOT
    - Avast!
    - TrustWave
    - DrWeb online check!
     
  12. Minimalist

    Minimalist Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2014
    Posts:
    5,078
    Yes it is kind of oxymoron :)

    hqsec
     
  13. Nebulus

    Nebulus Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2007
    Posts:
    1,582
    Location:
    European Union
    For me it is more a lack of trust rather than hate, but I don't believe in a "crowd" (or you can say "cloud") based opinion when it comes to making a decision for myself about visiting or not a certain site.
     
  14. Page42

    Page42 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2007
    Posts:
    5,829
    Location:
    Last Breath Farm
    If WOT was renamed according to how I use it, it would be called PFC (Pause for Cause), because that's what I do when I encounter one of their warnings.
    There is no trust involved, no hatred, just pause for cause... then I usually proceed to the site.
    Occasionally, when WOT throws up a warning, I recheck the url if I have entered one into the address field, because I sometimes type it wrong and the resulting site is seriously not a good place to be.
     
  15. Wroll

    Wroll Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2011
    Posts:
    549
    Location:
    Italy
    It's a good companion for NoScript. I have a few hundreds of tracking and not so useful scripts untrusted because of it. Although I block all scripts by default it's very useful to remove clutter on NoScript's list on pages with lots of scripts. It's easier to whitelist good script.
     
  16. guest

    guest Guest

    Why am I having an incredible amount of hatred towards WOT? Because it's irrational and too unreliable to be considered seriously.
    • There's one website that made fan English patches for some Japanese games. Without much thought, some people flagged it for spreading malware. Although it wasn't due to WOT's result, a user had asked about this and the web staff already said it's an FP. I know that website, and it doesn't spread malware like some dumb-dumbs accused.
    • Aside of the above example, there are many companies which get quite unfavored comments, although they are usually rated as "Good" in the WOT's flag (or whatever you are supposed to call it). Phishing and spam are the most favorite accusations among the comments. While some companies are actually guilty for the crimes, it gets too hard to believe when nearly everything you throw will yield pretty much the same results. How many times you see comments like "This company is spamming internet forums blah blah"?
    • It gave a green a.k.a. "Excellent" rating for a warez website, in which that warez site gave me an infection in the past. Why? Because they hosted a working cracked version of Sony Vegas Pro? Lol.
    • They flagged some religious and political websites as red. It really has nothing to do with security and privacy at all. I'm an anti-religion myself, but I won't be happily flagging those kind of websites just because I have different opinions with them.
    WOT is just misleading and give a false sense of safety IMO. It's not much different than questions like "Which is the best antivirus to use?" type of question. People just endlessly say their opinions and personal preferences. If people like a website, they'll rate it as green. If they hate a website, they'll rate it as red. WOT is way too opinion based. Users shouldn't have direct involvements in determining a safety of a website or file for the needs of the masses. This is also why I strongly disagree with cloud decision making in some BB or HIPS programs. If WOT changed the way it works to a more reliable concept like Bitdefender's database, then I surely will welcome it.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 11, 2014
  17. Sordid

    Sordid Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2011
    Posts:
    221
    I hate WOT because it leaks data, gives bogus hits, and burns coal supply.
     
  18. safeguy

    safeguy Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2010
    Posts:
    1,718
  19. moontan

    moontan Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2010
    Posts:
    3,931
    Location:
    Québec
    i don't hate WOT.

    the whole concept is too ridiculous to warrant hate. :cool:
     
  20. Austerity

    Austerity Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2013
    Posts:
    367
    Location:
    Georgia / USA
    I don't use it because I have no need for it, but mostly because I feel like it slows browsing.
     
  21. The Hammer

    The Hammer Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2005
    Posts:
    5,619
    Location:
    Toronto Canada
    I use it . It's worked for me.
     
  22. snerd

    snerd Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2007
    Posts:
    71
    Location:
    U.S.A.
  23. HAN

    HAN Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2005
    Posts:
    2,080
    Location:
    USA
    My use of it, along with the many, many others I've helped install it has convinced me that it is worthwhile. It may not be perfect but nothing is.
     
  24. DoctorPC

    DoctorPC Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2014
    Posts:
    813
    I use WOT as part of Adguard, and like it. It's given me very pertinent warnings about sites that 'appeared' fine, but were not.
     
  25. whitedragon551

    whitedragon551 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2008
    Posts:
    3,189
    Location:
    USA
    The strength of WOT is because of user submissions. Unfortunately their strength is also their weakness. I have yet to come across a single WOT page rating that isnt full of the same word for word ratings. Its far to easy for several users to rate a bad website as good and vice versa. Its simply unreliable. Human error and ignorance also plays a part in the weakness. 99% of all WOT comments/ratings are made by people who arent qualified to make such judgements.
     
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.