General discussion
Leaving forever
czw 08 maj 2008 00:13:37 UTC — connorscomputershowI decided to move on.
From now on, I'll use SiteAdvisor.
- Zaloguj się lub zarejestruj by odpowiadać
I decided to move on.
From now on, I'll use SiteAdvisor.
What's wrong with Wot?
wto 13 maj 2008 23:12:42 UTC — phantazmWhat's wrong with Wot? Couldn't you elaborate..?
Well I just left siteadvisor
pon 23 cze 2008 16:45:57 UTC — wotwotWell I just left siteadvisor for WOT, so you can take my place instead LOL :D
WoT is great
śro 14 maj 2008 18:21:25 UTC — DanChorleyIf you don't like it, you are a very small minority.
huh
pią 23 maj 2008 20:09:47 UTC — gabe000gabeW.O.T. is good no , way i'am leaving EVER!!!!!!!
why?
sob 24 maj 2008 11:19:18 UTC — James086uh why are you announcing your departure?
If you think it's not very good you could at least tell us WOT's wrong with it so a dev could improve upon it next release.
Personally I think it's great, especially with the comments that can be left about sites.
Leaving Forever
pon 02 cze 2008 22:43:15 UTC — herzenbergI think you are just announcing publicly that you are leaving and more importantly where you are going just as part of a viral advertising scheme.
Pointless?
czw 05 cze 2008 12:31:34 UTC — XRichXThis topic is really pointless, we don't really want to know you have left for other site advisor's. We believe in WOT and that's the main thing.
Leave - with a reason...
sob 07 cze 2008 14:10:25 UTC — phantazmI agree, the original message is really pointless.
In the future I'll suggest: If you leave,
then leave a reason why you did...
Ahahaha...
wto 24 cze 2008 16:58:07 UTC — Yatti420SiteAdvisor lol thats jokes.. WOT is soo much better then SiteAdvisor.. I feel sorry for his computer..
Peace
---------
Jared Gray
Using SA,WOT and XPL at the same time
pon 30 cze 2008 02:08:37 UTC — DiazruanovaSiteadvisor, Wot and Link Scanner do arrive basically to the same results (almost always) by using different methods and can be ran on anyone´s computer at the same time without side effects.
Why not use all of them
SiteAdvisor
sob 05 lip 2008 23:55:34 UTC — thedom98If I were you, I would stay with WOT because Siteadvisor is rated by an inbox of spam. I went to a good site and they gave it a yellow reading. This site has real people rating all around the world, if you want to leave, your choice but you're gonna be missing out from much better service.
SA ratings.
nie 06 lip 2008 15:35:09 UTC — logicman"Siteadvisor is rated by an inbox of spam".
I am not an inbox, I'm a human SA reviewer! :-) :-) :-) :-) :-)
I use both WOT and SA. There are advantages to each,
WOT has a faster reaction time,
SA - at the moment - has more expert/experienced reviewers.
WOT has fewer site ratings linked to trusted souces than SA.
but I am confident that this will change.
SA and WOT are allies in the war against spam, malwares etc.
SA users should'nt be knocking WOT, and vice-versa.
I did the opposite of you....
nie 06 lip 2008 16:58:13 UTC — ReprotectedI quitted SiteAdvisor and joined MyWOT, SiteAdvisor rates unknown websites too slowly!
Switched from Site Advisor to Wot
wto 15 lip 2008 04:34:16 UTC — Dynex7879Site Advisor relys to much on Spam and Mcafee AntiVirus which I don't highly regard. There have been dozen of sites that Mcafee rated as green but then had comments below from users that talked about spyware and Adware found on the sites. My favorite from Siteadvisor is "the majority of downloads on this site are safe" Heck if there all night safe then it should be green.
One thing that SiteAdvisor does have that I wish Wot had is that when you do a search you can click on the siteadvisor symbol and get details about the site. To do this in Wot you either have to go to the page to get the reasoning for the rating or go to Wots homepage and do a search.
Re: Scorecard
wto 15 lip 2008 07:06:53 UTC — SamiI'm not sure if I understood you, but you can open the current website's scorecard from the rating window. There's no need to manually search for it.
I'm going to use WOT AND Web
wto 15 lip 2008 05:24:04 UTC — Cheater87I'm going to use WOT AND Web Security Guard for my protection. :)
What I mean
wto 15 lip 2008 08:26:20 UTC — Dynex7879If you do a search with Google and have Site Advisor installed, a right click on that icon (on the Google Page) will allow you to see what the ratings are buy going to the siteadvisor page. You either have to copy the link and go wots homepage to do a search or you click through to that page before you have a link to see what people have said about it if you use Wot.
Does that make sense?
Re: What I mean
wto 15 lip 2008 08:53:27 UTC — SamiOh, that makes sense, I see what you mean.
WOT and McAfee SiteAdvisor.
śro 16 lip 2008 11:02:00 UTC — JTBI use both.
JTB
Administrator and owner of http://forum.itchatten.net/index.php
Re: dynex7879 comment
wto 15 lip 2008 12:28:45 UTC — logicmanI agree.
Anyone used to SA will almost instinctively click on the WOT icon to find out why it's red -
and be taken straight to a bad site.
A change of WOT to conform to the McAfee method would be a great idea,
alternatively - the google site reports intercept method.
A simple alternative - the AVG8 method - clicking on the actual rating icon does nothing.
(That's the AVG8 browser add-on, for those who've not seen it.)
This topic is very neatly hijacked, don't you think? ;-)
SiteAdvisor and WOT do more
wto 29 lip 2008 19:45:27 UTC — phantazmSiteAdvisor and WOT do more or less the same thing, but differently.
Different standards makes it possible to compare, and learn along the road.
But if they constantly confuse users, it is of course not good...
As SiteAdvisor is an old program compared to WOT, there are probably many people that are used to do things the SA way. If it's not obvious when WOT differs, then old habits may be confusing and interrupting. At least I can imagine some possible pitfalls along the road. I've been using SA for some years now, and yes, WOT is very different most of the time...