Blog
The WOT community is right
Thu 29 Jul 2010 03:47:51 AM UTC — Deborah S.
Lately, we have gotten excellent feedback from several major companies about the reliability and accuracy of WOT's data. Being validated by others (especially important, successful others) makes us feel all warm and fuzzy. But it really came as no surprise because we already knew that our data was reliable and accurate. Why?
Because the community is always right.
The reason why the WOT community is right is because WOT has the proper conditions in place to use the collective intelligence of many individuals to rate the reputation of websites. The conditions necessary for a crowd to be wise are: diversity, independence and decentralization.
Diversity:
The WOT community represents different points of view and different perspectives of what can be deemed trustworthy. Our users have different attitudes, experiences and personal information that make the whole wiser than the part. Bringing new members into the community, even if they are less experienced, makes the community smarter because they add information and experience which is unique.
Independence:
Each individual in the WOT community in an independent decision maker and relatively free from the influence of others. The personal knowledge that individuals bring with them, coupled with independent thinking, makes the community as a group smarter. Being independent doesn't necessarily mean the same as being isolated, and in fact, many of our members have casual connections and advise each other. Since information is spread across many people, this makes the group more likely to be collectively right. This also minimizes mistakes. As long as the WOT community is diverse and independent enough, mistakes that individuals make will diminish in value and the judgement of the community will be wise.
Decentralization:
The WOT community is a geographically diverse group of people representing almost every country in the world. This means that when making a judgment about the trustworthiness of a website, someone from Germany is applying their local and specific knowledge that may differ from someone in the USA or Indonesia, for example. There is no community leader orchestrating everything; rather the WOT system aggregates the local knowledge and personal experiences into a collective whole, making the reputation ratings smarter and more reliable.
Trusting the collective judgement of the WOT community is smart. The wisdom of this crowd gives you the best chance to make the right decision when searching, shopping and surfing the web - a decision that could save your computer and your bank account.
Please share WOT with your friends and family, and be sure to keep contributing your knowledge and experiences with websites so WOT has the most reliable and accurate ratings.
You can read more about this subject in James Surowiecki's book "The Wisdom of the Crowds."

Yep
Very accurate
WOT not reliable!
I recently have had a very bad experience with a site that is rated GREEN. I gave my rating and noticed that most ratings were negative for the site yet it is still listed as GREEN?????? http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&ved...
How does WOT work??????
Re: WOT not reliable!
The reputation is good, because most people seem to find the site trustworthy. It sounds like you are confusing ratings and comments. You should also remember that a good reputation doesn't guarantee that you'll never have a bad experience with a website.
What was bad?
What bad experience did you have? Do you have any supporting documentation?
Topix is a very well known and populate website. Topix is the leading news community on the Web, connecting people to the information and discussions that matter to them in every U.S. town and city.
Frank J
TechJaws.com
I agree - not reliable
WOT first came to my attention because a blogger I know - and have known for well over a year - was alerted by an advertiser that his site had a "very poor" rating. (This, apparently, from about 6-9 users.) His site does not deserve a "very poor" rating at all, and he is one of the most trustworthy and helpful people I've run across on the Internet in years.
Clearly, ratings can be manipulated by groups of people with an agenda - be they competitors, political opponents, or simply people who love or hate you.
WOT is similar to Alexa in that only visits and ratings by people with the toolbar count; however, unlike Alexa, it plasters a huge warning on sites that have been "blacklisted" for whatever reason. (I would not be surprised, at this point, to find mine among them - having spoken out on this quite vocally now.) There seems to be little recourse, once that happens. And you wouldn't even know that it had happened, until some kindly soul bothers to alert you.
Furthermore, it seems everyone's eager to set themselves up as a credentialing authority these days. Why on earth would you trust a "seal of approval" that can (or must) be BOUGHT? Seriously, WOT, that does nothing for your credibility.
This feels like middle school all over again. Grow up, people, and make your own decisions as to the worthiness of a site. Use a good antivirus/malware program and go out there and discover things on your own, rather than following the herd.
Re: I agree - not reliable
This, apparently, from about 6-9 users
It seems you too are confusing comments with ratings, even though I linked to an explanation in an earlier response. You can't tell how many people have rated the site, because ratings are not public.
His site does not deserve a "very poor" rating at all, and he is one of the most trustworthy and helpful people I've run across on the Internet in years
Why don't you mention the website then so everyone can judge that for themselves? You can do even better by posting to the forum and asking others to review the site. If they disagree with a reputation, it's usually quickly corrected.
Clearly, ratings can be manipulated by groups of people with an agenda
Clearly, if reputations were easy to manipulate, you would have already manipulated them the other way instead of complaining here. In reality, reputations are quite difficult to manipulate.
be they competitors, political opponents, or simply people who love or hate you
It's more likely that people simply didn't trust the website, which is exactly what reputations tell you. It's also possible that the site was compromised recently, which hurt its reputation. It's hard to tell without knowing which site you mean.
WOT is similar to Alexa in that only visits and ratings by people with the toolbar count
You don't seem to understand how WOT works. You can rate on the add-on and on the website, and how much your ratings are trusted depends on how reliable the system considers you. This is exactly what makes the rating system extremely resistant to spamming and manipulation.
I would not be surprised, at this point, to find mine among them - having spoken out on this quite vocally now.
Yes, there must be a conspiracy against you and your friends.
There seems to be little recourse, once that happens
There's no recourse if people really don't trust the website.
If you suspect the reputation doesn't reflect the majority opinion, you can post to the forum and ask others to review the site. Note that this only helps improve the reputation if other people feel the reputation is incorrect, and there's no guarantee of that obviously.
Why on earth would you trust a "seal of approval" that can (or must) be BOUGHT?
I find it strange that people make this kind of assumptions without bothering to even find out what the trust seal is and what are the criteria for getting one. You cannot buy a good reputation.
go out there and discover things on your own, rather than following the herd
When it comes to scams and other untrustworthy sites, most people appreciate learning from the experiences of others instead of discovering everything themselves. Of course, WOT doesn't force you to "follow the herd" either. You are free to ignore the warnings if you prefer or even disable them completely.
Well gentlefolk’s, that is
Well gentlefolk’s, that is such companies, as WOT, that provide truthful and exact data for the users. It enables to feel their clients really in safe hands. Wonderful new of this day about a company WOT
We are the best!
Deborah,
Together we win!
Frank J
TechJaws.com
WOT is A+++
I used to use SiteAdvisor by McAfee since it was launched and by accident I discovered WOT and tried it out. I think I got more out of WOT when I started joining in the forum and learning more about the Rating system, how to use online toolsd for discovering dodgy sites et. basically it has been (and still is) a big learning curve, enjoyable though.
After about a month of running it side by side with SiteAdvisor, I noticed there was many conflicting ratings between the two, that's when I done some digging and discovered SiteAdvisor ratings could be out of date for a year. This made me remove SiteAdvisor and I've been a happy WOT user since.
WOT is A+++ x2
Now if you could have the option to - remove red or yellow sites form even showing up on a search......
But totally agree with mentalist3d and it's really nice to see the comments others members have left. It just assures you to steer clear of the neg. sites.
Congrats on your 10 million downloads !
re: The WOT community is right
-------
WOT Services Ltd. - gives us safety through Web of Trust.
WOT Community - gives us security through unity.
Thank you all
- G7W
web of trust
bs you base bad press on nothing more than 1 unhappy person. thats not a web
Re: web of trust
You may want to read about rating reliability to understand why the number of ratings isn't that relevant. Also, ratings are private and you can't actually see them, so make sure you're not confusing ratings with comments. Of course, if you disagree with a reputation, go ahead and rate the site yourself or start a thread about it on the forum.
web of hgh horses and entrenched opionions
I just went to a site rated orange, comments said it had hateful content, there was nothing at all hateful, it was a site explaining that Islam does not ban friendships with Christians. The URL however was http://www.answering-christianity.com , which I fully expect caused a lot of ratings from people who did not read the page to assume that it was anti Christian and therefor 'evil'
I am also noticing more and more that people are automatically giving red ratings for everything, rather than selectively rating privacy, child safety etc. A site that gives incorrect/misleading information for instance is rated red for reliability and privacy with no justification.
Sadly I think WOT Id going to need to go the way of wikipedia and incorporate some higher level of checking/ banning /training