Netlux.org

[Lisandro]

WOT is full of false positives and false negatives.
The correction is slow and could let to tragic consequences (if the user let only in WOT judgments).
WOT is not security but false sensation of security.
Security is for experts and not for polling.
My personal opinion as usual.

[Left123]

@bob3160 post:20

@Left123 post:18

@bob3160 post:17

@ Altarir

Your statement about WOT being unreliable is totally unconstructive. PROVE that it is unreliable! With some better arguments than "it's user based" nonsense. Can you?

http://mysharedfiles.no-ip.org/ Perfectly clean but still tagged by WOT

We are talking about malicious sites.This site is not marked as RED.
If you see Shazza’s comment at last page it says : http://safeweb.norton.com/report/show?url=68.35.72.131&x=9&y=8
Also it WAS BLACKlisted by http://www.malwareurl.com. It’s not now,that’s why it’s “orange”=be cautious

That means that site HAD a trojan.

The fact is that it had a false positive - it never had a trojan. The explanation was posted on the WOT forum.

There are always false positives,on avast also ;).

@Tech I din’t say that wot is perfect but you can’t say that is useless.I never had a problem with wot.At least there are always php[host] comments so i can trust wot.

[system]

WOT is full of false positives and false negatives.

“Full”? False. It has a couple of them occasionally, but what doesn’t have any?

The correction is slow and could let to tragic consequences (if the user let only in WOT judgments).

Time needed to correct rating depends on amount of wrong ratings. Often it goes pretty fast.

WOT is not security but false sensation of security.

False.

Security is for experts

Yeah, usual users can’t even hope to be secure :

To be serious, though, WOT has not much more fps than, say, hpHosts

[system]

Okay, guys, let’s NOT turn another thread into a WOT flamewar, shall we?
http://kolobok.us/smiles/standart/offtopic.gif

[bob3160]

@Altarir. post:23

The correction is slow and could let to tragic consequences (if the user let only in WOT judgments).

Time needed to correct rating depends on amount of wrong ratings. Often it goes pretty fast.

I’ve been trying to get my site corrected for way over a year. Don’t consider that fast or do you ???

Time for WOT to rely on actual scanning of sites and not the advice of would be experts.
WOT however doesn’t scan sites at all.

[system]

@bob3160 post:25

I’ve been trying to get my site corrected for way over a year. Don’t consider that fast or do you ???

Maybe asking on their forum again would help, no? I see you did this a long while ago, but why you’re giving up so easily?

Time for WOT to rely on actual scanning of sites and not the advice of would be experts.

Advice? Wrong word. Opinion, rather.

And what makes you think those users who rate sites don’t check them?

[bob3160]

Please continue arguing with yourself.
I’ve stated the facts which you aren’t interested in.

[Lisandro]

@Altarir. post:23

“Full”? False. It has a couple of them occasionally, but what doesn’t have any?

My personal experience. And they take molasses to correct their own (their users) mistakes.

@Altarir. post:23

Time needed to correct rating depends on amount of wrong ratings. Often it goes pretty fast.

My personal experience with FUD. Full of bad ratings and slow corrections.

@Altarir. post:23

WOT is not security but false sensation of security.

False.

If you say so

@Altarir. post:23

To be serious, though, WOT has not much more fps than, say, hpHosts

YoKenny will blame you if you say this about hpHosts ;D
I’ve used it in the past and it was not that bad on infected sites (false negatives) but, really, there are false positives also.

[Lisandro]

@Left123 post:22

@Tech I din’t say that wot is perfect but you can’t say that is useless.I never had a problem with wot.At least there are always php[host] comments so i can trust wot.

Did I said it is useless? ;D
Well, sorry, then. I just said I personally do not trust it.