Forum
Comments:
-
- on Sat 25 Aug 2007
- 07:30:26 PM UTC
WOT
Here are some points you might want to consider:
WOT knows more websites.
WOT's reputations are up-to-date. Reputations are calculated every half an hour when new information is available.
With WOT you can share your knowledge with others and your opinions really count.
You can also use WOT for protecting children. -
- on Sat 25 Aug 2007
- 09:52:03 PM UTC
Siteadvisor vs wot
I am a wot user and after seeing your post, decided to try site advisor and compare it. Now before I continue, I want everyone to know I'm not trying to purposly make site advisor look bad, I'm just judging what I thought of my web experience with it compared to wot.
Wot advantages:
First of all, siteadvisor cant work with wot as well unless u get wot, get site advisor, uninstall wot, and install wot again, which already shows a major flaw. =/.
Second, site advisor causes conflicts with many add ons including callingidlinkadvisor
Third, site advisor when on a site doesnt show u the details, like wot does. It only shows u details in google search results, and not many even at that.
Wot highlights the safe and unsafe results in green yellow and red depending on how safe
Wot has much more preferences
ikf mcafee doesnt have it, they likely neverwill. WIth wot, if a user or several users awho are trusted enough by the wot team, they can judge whether or not a site is safe, and let others know as well.
Wot reputation data shows up in links in emails without pictures. Site advisor doesnt
Wot doesnt try to get u to pay for a better version of the ad on
With the right configuration, any user can let wot work with any search engine in the world. With site advisor u cant.
Doesn't cover up the thing at the top of google search results alerting u of how many results it retrieved which site advisor sometimes does
Mcafee isnt the best company when t comes to a lot of their products...
Site advisor advantages:
Sitea dvisor tells u the number of emails a site sends each week, therefor letting u know that it may send u spam even tho its not necessarily dangerous
Site advisor works with internet explorer -
- on Thu 03 Jan 2008
- 01:46:40 PM UTC
Siteadvisor vs wot
"First of all, siteadvisor cant work with wot as well unless u get wot, get site advisor, uninstall wot, and install wot again, which already shows a major flaw. =/."
Hm, I have had no problems installing either. But I've also read somewhere in FireFox that it may lead to trouble if too many add ons are installed. Furthermore it could also be windows; a system not known for its excellency...
"Wot highlights the safe and unsafe results in green yellow and red depending on how safe"
SA also highligths in Green, Yellow or Red. And if you want more, there's usually several reviews to read...
"It only shows u details in google search results, and not many even at that."
It also works with Yahoo and MSN Search...
PS: I'm not trying to defend McAfee here; I've used AVG for years (and recently added Avast)
-
- on Mon 27 Aug 2007
- 06:44:19 AM UTC
re:Siteadvisor vs. WOT
-Finjan,the firefox addon is also a security advisor (see https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/489... ) similar to WOT and Siteadvisor. Finjan does not show the reputation of the url we type in the address-bar.; but shows the reputation of all sites of search-results well.When an untrustworthy site jumps into the address-bar without our permission(this happens when you go to some music/video/antivirus sites) WOT will immediately put a transparent curtain and warns us.This is a very good service and WOT is more dependable than any others, in my experience.
-
- on Wed 29 Aug 2007
- 10:14:39 PM UTC
I havent used other add-ons etc...
To my knowledge Site-advisor is web based? I don't own or pay for the mcaffee suite so Id have no clue... I use WOT as a final barrier (OpenDNS>HostsMan>WOT) You could include anything or as little as you want.. I find the above apps\services "essential"... If site-advisor is simply web-based it wouldn't really benefit... Just my opinion...Thx..
-
- on Fri 31 Aug 2007
- 07:08:22 PM UTC
re:Siteadvisor vs. WOT
I used to use SiteAdvisor. These are my reasons for preferring WOT:
- WOT can tell you whether a site is family-safe. It seems that neither SiteAdvisor nor Finjan offer that.
- WOT can report on the reputation of a site linked to from a Gmail message, without you having to click the link. SiteAdvisor can do this, but it costs money.
- In the same manner, WOT can also check external links on Wikipedia pages. SiteAdvisor can't do that at all.
- WOT works perfectly fine on older Windows systems (Win9X, WinME). SiteAdvisor tends to be crash Firefox on such systems.To Yatti420: SiteAdvisor can be accessed with both the Web and a browser add-on.
-
- on Sat 01 Sep 2007
- 11:43:49 PM UTC
re:Siteadvisor vs. WOT
I currently evaluated these three Firefox add-on and agree with the previous comments. But I can't find anything about Against Intuition Inc. Where is the company address, who is behind and so on....
- Also, I would like to know if this company has planned to internationalise this firefox extension. -
- on Sun 02 Sep 2007
- 07:35:17 AM UTC
re:Siteadvisor vs. WOT
We are just in the middle of moving to new offices in Helsinki. We'll be sure to update the "About us" page next week. In the mean while, if you have any questions, feel free to contact us via email.
Yes, we have plans to translate the add-on to other languages.
-
- on Sat 08 Sep 2007
- 05:47:18 PM UTC
TRanslating to finnish
If you translate wot to finish i bet my brother would try it, cuz he is learning finish and loves anything having to do with it so if you can make an option to translate wot into finnish that'd be great.
-
- on Sat 08 Sep 2007
- 07:58:55 PM UTC
re:Siteadvisor vs. WOT
I'm sure a Finnish translation can be arranged. ;)
-
- on Fri 28 Dec 2007
- 01:32:01 PM UTC
Siteadvisor seems too complicated a bit and boring.
I tried Siteadvisor and it was too complicated and boring and also its system is outdated I think which shows all wrong reputation so just after sometime I tried and stopped using it.
About their Rating and Comment system well its useless somehow as few people say something else with their rating and it seems confusing.
Therefore final verdict is that WOT is the best web rating system of all.
Best regards,
Anand N. -
- on Sun 30 Dec 2007
- 09:34:19 PM UTC
Clif Notes dumps SiteAdvisor in favor of WOT
I just happened to come across the well known blog of Clif Notes who writes freeware reviews. Clif has used SiteAdvisor and WOT side by side and has decided to dump SiteAdvisor in favor of WOT. Read more at http://clif-notes.blogspot.com/2007/12/wot-plugin-...
-
- on Fri 02 Apr 2010
- 04:01:51 PM UTC
I have Site Advisor & I have
I have Site Advisor & I have installed WOT as an add-on in Firefox. They seem to be working perfectly fine side by side at the moment. I have noticed that SA flags some sites as green that WOT has warnings about though. Both SA & WOT seem to work fine together for me.
-
- on Fri 02 Apr 2010
- 04:08:00 PM UTC
Site Advisor is Run by Professionals
WOT is just amateurs. Who would you trust more?
-
- on Fri 02 Apr 2010
- 07:13:32 PM UTC
Amateurs
The same could be said about Site Advisor.They also have reviewers like WOT.The main difference that I see is Site Advisors ratings are often way out of date.If your site is misrated it takes a long time for Site Advisor to sort out a mistake.At WOT you can post a request to be re-rated straight away and it is usually dealt with in a fair manner.No website rating tool is perfect.Thats why I use LinkExtend to help with my ratings for WOT.It gives a lot of information.
-
- on Fri 02 Apr 2010
- 07:55:25 PM UTC
Although
The reviewers tend to have to have proven themselves at least somewhat educated in web safety.
Another problem of WOT is it tends to only be people who regularly visit a website who will give it ratings. Thus they're more likely to give it a higher rating than a neutral reviewer would, thus most sites seem to be on "excellent" despite a lot of them being more suited to "unsatisfactory".
Another downside is that a user's reliability is determined by such things as to what extent your ratings are agreed upon by other users. If a website gets an unfair rating of green, then more users are likely to rate it the same to boost their reliability without viewing the site as objectively as they should.
-
- on Fri 02 Apr 2010
- 09:01:17 PM UTC
Sweeping Statements
chazsm - You seem to be making some unjustifiably sweeping statements based on nothing more than your assumptions. Indeed, your posting looks very much as though you might be employed by Site Advisor to undermine WOT when you state, "The reviewers" (presumably at Site Advisor) "tend to have to have proven themselves at least somewhat educated in web safety." There are plenty of WOT users who have considerable education and experience in very many aspects of computer technology and web safety.
When you state, "Another problem of WOT is it tends to only be people who regularly visit a website who will give it ratings.", this is an assumption, and nothing more. The ratings of WOT users are anonymous, at least to other WOT users, so you have no evidential basis for making this assumption.
The comment that, "a user's reliability is determined by such things as to what extent your ratings are agreed upon by other users", is not strictly true because the user's reliability is statistically weighted by that user's reputation. However, I can see the concern that you express on this point might appear to be the case.
Unfortunately, you then diminish the argument by suggesting that WOT users do not rate sites objectively, whereas the fact is that the ratings of users with the highest reliability (reputation) quite clearly do give objective consideration to the safety of sites. You only have to look on this forum at the lengths some WOT users go to in order to accurately rate sites, and where mistakes have been made then they are quickly discovered and rectified.
-
- on Fri 02 Apr 2010
- 08:31:26 PM UTC
Re: Site Advisor is Run by Professionals
Read the FAQ. WOT tells you how much people trust the website, it's not just for protecting you from malware.
-
- on Sun 16 May 2010
- 11:45:56 PM UTC
Their people are so called reliable
Oh yeah that's why all their so called reliable members purposely mark websites wrong. At least 30 of norton's 50 dirties sites are rated green, example.
http://safeweb.norton.com/report/show?url=17ebook....
__________________________________________________________________
Silver-Member of WOT-Community -
- on Sun 16 May 2010
- 11:50:05 PM UTC
So their ''professionals'' are so reliable, like this one below
http://safeweb.norton.com/profile/Sasuke, who knew aladel. net with over 1000 threats was safe. This is not an isolated incident, he/she is just an example. __________________________________________________________________
Silver-Member of WOT-Community -
- on Mon 17 May 2010
- 12:02:46 AM UTC
Your info is wrong, yes
Your info is wrong, yes there is amateurs, but if you read through a lot of the posts you will soon realise there is many professionals rating sites, that also use many third party tools created by professionals to rate sites.
And as for amateurs making the ratings, if they get a virus from the site, whether they are knowledgeable or not, their opinion still counts and helps warn other "amateurs".
I have seen sites on WOT go from green to red in a matter of hours and vice versa, but with site advisor, new sites seem to stay grey indefinetly, once a site is red it stays red, and sites that are rated green stay green and this is where the danger lies with siteadvisor.
For example, I want to spread viruses through a site, I build a clean site to get a green rating on siteadvisor, as soon as I get the green, I update the site to deliver my virus payload safe in the knowledge that siteadvisor may take up to a year before reviewing the site again, meanwhile people are trusting my virus ridden site because siteadvisor says its ok.
If I try this with WOT, the site will go from green to red very quickly, so no contest WOT 1, SiteAdvisor 0
-
- on Mon 17 May 2010
- 12:15:28 AM UTC
Wow
Then their professionals should be fired, their software is as good as mcafee, and half their amateurs are little liars. How could their software mark aladel.net, 17ebook.com, teamclouds.com and countless other truly awful sites green without their "professionals" noticing, I mean they are on their dirty sites list: http://safeweb.norton.com/dirtysites, guess their just to lazy to bother listening to the amateurs. __________________________________________________________________
Silver-Member of WOT-Community -
- on Mon 17 May 2010
- 01:53:06 AM UTC
??
This topic is about SiteAdvisor from McAfee: www.siteadvisor.com
versus versus WOT www.mywot.comWhy do you keep referencing [the clowns over at] Norton Safe Web?
The article: http://safeweb.norton.com/dirtysites is a joke.
A referenced "dirty" site when clicking on the report link show the site "clean"
The two graphs try to imply that the "longer" the site is referenced in NSW, the "cleaner" it get's... ROTFLI hope no one rates WOT scorecards based on this "list" - it is definitely NOT a trusted source, not even for NSW...
-
- on Fri 02 Apr 2010
- 04:15:47 PM UTC
Second opinion
I'll have to wait & see. It doesn't hurt to have a second opinion!
-
- on Fri 02 Apr 2010
- 06:57:51 PM UTC
Mywot of course.
I recommend Mywot, Because the Siteadvisor is outdated and I didn't see it updated.
And the Mywot updates all the rank of websites everyday, Plus when a user tells a really full description of the site if it's bad good or risky, Then Mywot will take a look immediately and then they will say it's has a bad reputations or other attributes.
So I prefer Mywot. -
- on Fri 02 Apr 2010
- 09:43:13 PM UTC
Lets be realistic about
Lets be realistic about this. No matter which service you use, there will be errors in results as they will NEVER be 100% accurate. Each service offers its own benefits. People go with what they feel secure and comfortable with. The only feature that is missing in all these applications is "common sense" to supplement the lack of it in a fair few surfers.
www.issviews.com for views and news of the starte of digital security. Add your comments/.feedback on your existing security software to help others choose what's right for them and what isn't. Read up on the latest rogue software and threats too.
-
- on Fri 02 Apr 2010
- 11:38:03 PM UTC
Lacking Common Sense
How true that is, and human history is littered with examples of the lack of common sense. For instance, the last hundred years of motoring demonstrate that the most unreliable component in a car is the nut behind the steering wheel. Similarly, the most unreliable component in any computer network is the liveware.
On the other hand, if it wasn't for the all-too human lack of common sense then there wouldn't be any need for WOT, Site Advisor, or any of the other such software.
-
- on Sat 03 Apr 2010
- 12:26:53 PM UTC
SRWare Iron & WOT
I use SRWare Iron predominantly anyway & even though I have McAfee as my AV, Site Advisor doesn't work in Iron as there is no plug-in for it. So I can use WOT in Iron. So far I'm impressed with what I've seen of WOT.
EDIT: I have since dscovered that there is a Google Chrome extension for SA that will work in Iron. I'm sticking with WOT at the moment though.
Siteadvisor vs. WOT
Why should I use WOT instead of Siteadvisor? (http://www.siteadvisor.com/)