I guess most users would now be utilizing at least one of the common site advisory services to augment security when browsing. These services are generally installed as browser add-ons or plug-ins and help identify rogue sites per medium of a ratings system. Because of my work with DCT, I utilize them all, regularly and often – every link, download and site posted here on DCT is checked and double checked through the leading site advisory services and only those with the required Green ratings make it through.
There is no doubt these ratings systems can be a very useful guide when browsing, but only if they are accurate and equitable. Incorrect ratings are not only misleading they can also be totally unjust. There have already been several well publicized cases involving McAfee Site Advisor and the damage caused to site owners due to inaccurate ratings.
WOT (Web Of Trust) is one of the more recent advisory services and one which has quickly gained popularity. WOT’s ratings system is largely based on user input, an approach which I have always considered vulnerable and open to abuse. As WOT has grown so have I found its ratings to be less and less reliable; often confusing, sometimes just downright wrong.
I am experiencing the following scenario involving WOT more and more – (I use LinkExtend to check site ratings, LinkExtend incorporates 7 leading site advisory services including both WOT and McAfee Site Advisor):
I am checking out relatively new software, I go to the home home page and click on the LinkExtend icon to reveal the ratings. WOT rates the site negatively, it is the only one in seven which does – all the others give the site a Green rating. So I go to the WOT Site Details page. There are absolutely zero negative comments, nothing whatsoever to substantiate the negative rating.
Here is a typical example: Just today I was checking out a new freeware called PixBuilder Studio. I went to the home page and checked the ratings through LinkExtend as per normal. WOT gives the site a negative rating, both McAfee Site Advisor and Browser Defender rate the site Green. So I navigated to WOT’s Site Details page and there is not one negative comment nor anything else to substantiate the rating:
http://www.mywot.com/en/scorecard/wnsoft.com
[NOTE: WOT has now altered the rating for wnsoft.com to Green, virtually overnight it seems – hmm. Anyway here are two more examples for sites which show a negative rating without any explanation or apparent justification: HERE and HERE]
This is also occurring in reverse, although less frequently, where there are lots of negative comments on the Site Details page yet the site is rated Green. If a service such as WOT cannot provide predominantly accurate ratings then as far as I am concerned it is next to useless. Plus it is often doing a disservice to the sites involved, possibly damaging reputations based on what appears to be zero evidence. I have broached this subject with WOT previously, they reply but the response is always clouded in a mist of rhetoric.
If you are listening WOT, you seriously need to alter your methodology for rating sites – it is imperative that any negative rating be backed up with substantiating evidence – not merely because someone, somewhere anonymously clicked on a button.
Jim, I hear you. I’ve run into this several times and was astonished by what I found. I run both WOT and Kaspersky, and shake my head silly at what I discover. I’ll shy away from McAfee as they leave a bad taste (inside joke). Do hope you let WOT know this – maybe sending them a link to this article can open their eyes, Mindblower!
Jim, try re-visiting PixBuilder Studio since it shows GREEN (now) for both WOT and Kaspersky. Might of been a glitch (or someone got their act together), Mindblower!
Hey MB – I can’t believe it, WOT has changed the Rating – more or less overnight! Either WOT must have have read this article or the wnsoft.com owners did and then contacted WOT and complained. 🙂
Anyway, doesn’t really alter the context of the article, the scenario holds true for dozens more sites (hundreds maybe) – here are 2 more examples I located in just minutes: http://www.mywot.com/en/scorecard/xero-graphics.co.uk ~ http://www.mywot.com/en/scorecard/installsoftware.com
Oh, and I might add – McAfee Site Advisor is not much better, MSA also rates many sites negatively without presenting any reasoning or substantiating evidence on the Site Details page – here’s just one example from MSA: http://www.siteadvisor.com/sites/pearlmountainsoft.com
Why is installsoftware.com rated ‘yellow’ on WoT ? This could be the reason –
http://www.malwareblacklist.com/searchClearingHouse.php?search=installsoftware.com
&
this is what http://global.sitesafety.trendmicro.com says about installsoftware.com –
The latest tests indicate that this site contains malicious software or could defraud visitors
(Just an observer)
That’s fine Knowitall but the question is this; why is that information not available on the WOT Site Details page? You seem to have dug it up easily enough.
That’s the key issue here, not necessarily whether WOT’s ratings are accurate or not. If WOT is going to rate a site negatively then surely that rating should be backed up with some sort of substantiating evidence.
I’ll also add; both Mcafee Site Advisor and Browser Defender rate that same site Green (safe), so it is very possible the reports you linked to are based on false positives.
how can WOT be reliable when anyone on the planet can enter their grudge or whatever negative thing they want to for whatever reason? i stopped using WOT years ago.
likewise, i have noticed problems with WOT. i am a religious individual that enjoys informative sites from like minded sites. however, many people attempt to give such sites poor ratings because they do not agree with the religious sentiment. a year ago i went to a large children’s charity to sponser a 3rd world kid and found it had a poor rating. the purpose of WOT is not to engage in culture wars and downgrade ideas that you don’t agree with. i wish people would just leave their `ax to grind’ at home.