(The quickest way to register)

Forum

  1. User picture
    • 3Dsound on Wed 29 Apr 2009
    • 10:24:18 AM UTC

    Remove WOT from toolbar without uninstalling program?

    I am not a fan of WOT, but I feel I need to participate in it because it's recognized as a web standard.

    1. How can I completely remove the WOT icon from my Explorer toolbar without uninstalling the program? (which is to say I couldn't care less about the information WOT provides -- I only want to monitor WOT's status and selected ratings from time to time.)

    2. If I uninstall the program, do I loose my account? or can I periodically install the program and check in to see how WOT is doing?

    Many thanks for your help. -3D

Comments:

  1. User picture
    • ADMIRAL55 on Wed 29 Apr 2009
    • 10:35:05 AM UTC

    1. If you are using Mozila

    1. If you are using Mozila Firefox as your web browser than you can disable the toolbar for some time and than you can activate it again.
    2. If you uninstall the program you wont lose your account on WOT.

    • User picture
      • 3Dsound on Wed 29 Apr 2009
      • 12:07:25 PM UTC

      Yeah, but for every single page I load?

      I use Explorer, not Firefox -- But yes, it's possible to unlock the toolbar and move the WOT icon around or remove it. However, none of those modifications carry through to the next page you open - which will display the WOT icon on the toolbar. very annoying.

      Surely WOT Command has devised a way to remove the WOT icon from an Explorer toolbar for good (without uninstalling the program).

    • User picture
      • Beth-Ann Wymore on Thu 03 Dec 2009
      • 11:38:24 PM UTC

      WOT

      I'll just uninstall the WOT program.

    • User picture
      • swan-nebula on Sun 03 Apr 2011
      • 08:34:21 AM UTC

      RE: 1. If you are using Mozila

      I am using fire as my default with yahoo,I want to remove yahoo as well as WOT

  2. User picture
    • phantazm on Wed 29 Apr 2009
    • 12:21:42 PM UTC

    It's foremost an IE problem...

    3Dsound: "Surely WOT Command has devised a way to remove the WOT icon from an Explorer toolbar for good (without uninstalling the program)."

    Well, IE is not the best browser available, just look at how long it took microsoft to include a simple thing like tabs..

    If modifications don't "carry through to the next page you open" I am not surprised.
    To me it looks like yet another quirk - of IE, not WOT.

    Actually, the WOT icon is rather small - only 1/10 the size of Siteadvisors ditto...

  3. User picture
    • c۞g on Wed 29 Apr 2009
    • 04:25:40 PM UTC

    re: Remove WOT from toolbar without uninstalling program?

    Firstly, I 'd like to say welcome to the Forum 3Dsound
    Also a simple FYL, I am a WOT user / member.
    Next an interesting quote from W3C back in 1999 - 2003, well before WOT - Web of Trust and Against Intuition were conceived:

    W3C in 7 points
    3. Trust
    The Web is a collaborative medium, not read-only like a magazine. In fact, the first Web browser was also an editor, though most people today think of browsing as primarily viewing, not interacting. To promote a more collaborative environment, we must build a "Web of Trust" that offers confidentiality, instills confidence, and makes it possible for people to take responsibility for (or be accountable for) what they publish on the Web. These goals drive much of W3C's work around XML signatures, annotation mechanisms, group authoring, versioning, etc.
    • Interaction
    • Confidentiality
    • Confidence
    • Responsibility
    • Accountability

    Key points brought up by the W3C's old "mission" statement, and still basically the same in the current one are, in my opinion, shared by WOT - Web of Trust.

    3Dsound:
    I am not a fan of WOT, but I feel I need to participate in it because it's recognized as a web standard.

    That's disappointing to hear that you're not a fan, but I see no reason to force yourself into a situation that you have no desire to be a part of; just simply uninstall the IE Add-on.

    3Dsound asks:
    1. How can I completely remove the WOT icon from my Explorer toolbar without uninstalling the program? (which is to say I couldn't care less about the information WOT provides -- I only want to monitor WOT's status and selected ratings from time to time.)

    Well, like Sami explained, go into WOT -> Settings -> Advanced deselect the "Re-create the toolbar button..." option and Apply Settings then remove the WOT toolbar in IE. To monitor "status" you can lurk these Forums or simply use Google. As for "selected rating" this implies that you have a few websites you want to check the Scorecards on. You don't need WOT installed to view a scorecard, I look at many via Opera, the trick is the URL. append any IP number or example.com domain name, or sub1.example.com subdomain to this: http :// www. mywot.com/en/scorecard/ here's an example: http://www.mywot.com/scorecard/sub1.example.org

    3Dsound also asks:
    2. If I uninstall the program, do I loose my account? or can I periodically install the program and check in to see how WOT is doing?

    No.
    You can uninstall WOT, but your user account you created here remains until you log in and go to your Profile -> Edit -> [scroll to bottom] Delete
    This deletes your account with WOT and anonymizes your username on existing posts or comments.

    3Dsound concludes:
    Many thanks for your help. -3D
    No problem.
    Hope you change your mind and become an active participant.

    peace,
    -------
    Against Intuition - gives us safety through Web of Trust.
    WOT Community - gives us security through unity.
    Thank you all
    G7W {G.O.M}
    http://g7w.net/

    • User picture
      • 3Dsound on Thu 30 Apr 2009
      • 11:35:32 AM UTC

      Trust?

      "3. Trust
      The Web is a collaborative medium, not read-only like a magazine. In fact, the first Web browser was also an editor, though most people today think of browsing as primarily viewing, not interacting. To promote a more collaborative environment, we must build a "Web of Trust" that offers confidentiality, instills confidence, and makes it possible for people to take responsibility for (or be accountable for) what they publish on the Web. These goals drive much of W3C's work around XML signatures, annotation mechanisms, group authoring, versioning, etc.

      Interaction
      Confidentiality
      Confidence
      Responsibility
      Accountability
      Key points brought up by the W3C's old "mission" statement, and still basically the same in the current one are, in my opinion, shared by WOT - Web of Trust."

      That's very nice, of course, but I don't understand how it gives WOT the license to make quantitative assessments on a qualitative phenomena like the "trustworthiness" of an informational or opinion-driven website.

      Trust me, WOT should stick to what it knows -- security. And leave the rest of the web alone.

      • User picture
        • c۞g on Thu 30 Apr 2009
        • 02:18:07 PM UTC

        re: Trust?

        -Trust is a prediction of reliance on an action, based on what a party knows about the other party. Trust is a statement about what is otherwise unknown. {n.}

        the "trustworthiness" of an informational or opinion-driven website

        Trustworthiness is the ability to trust. {n.}
        Information versus misinformation; how does one discern the truth, who should believe whom? Opinions can be biased and there is also deception for not everyone tells the truth, some products are not what they're advertised to be, not all web-stores are genuine there are those out there with the sole intention of stealing from you, etc., etc., blah, blah...

        I am certain you do not purchase medications from a Canadian Pharmacy web-based storefront via a "firm" in China because your email told you to, just like I doubt you would adhere to philosophies that are against your driving principles; simply because you do not trust them. If I'm wrong, my apologies, if I'm correct then welcome to WOT.

        Excluding the obvious such as a virus/Trojan infested websites, WOT is not about everyone agreeing, in fact it's more accurate when there are disagreements, that is how WOT as a Community offers a proclivity of Trust in Digital Information. Trust in information is developing into a vitally important topic as the Internet becomes increasingly ubiquitous within society. {n.}

        The WOT add-on, software, code whatever you wish to conceive it to be... rates nothing. It is a tool, a device used to voice a user's opinion of a website based upon their experience(s) and relayed to other WOT users to see - literally, based upon a code of color informing others as to whether or not they trust that site (rating votes) with option to voice opinion (comments).

        Users...
        Sometimes "users" are not human, there are Trusted Sources that may be applied to a website, to start off the rating. These sources include blacklists for known spammers or malicious sites, they could be a verification of a Trust Seal such as Verizon's, or an Adult Listing service, or a Health or Medical Site listing, and others. These have some value but can be overridden by other human user's opinions (ratings), so they are just a "start" or "placeholder" to get a Site's Trust going.

        Many sites discussed within these forums get rate Very Poorly (RED | Danger) for the sole intention of protecting other WOT users from their scrupulous activities, but there are millions of websites many of which are good and pure and genuine, it is these sites that you and me and other WOT users rate individually, so they are not as quickly rated but it doesn't mean they are "bad" or "good" it just means they are.

        Again, welcome to WOT Forum :-)

        a bit off topic but on a personal note:
        There is an Author, one of my personal favorites, Harlan Ellison who wrote in The Deathbird
        1.
        This is a test. Take notes. This will count as 3/4 of your final grade. Hints: remember, in chess, kings cancel each other out and cannot occupy adjacent squares, are therefore all-powerful and totally powerless, cannot affect each other, produce stalemate. Hinduism is a polytheistic religion; the sect of Atman worships the divine spark of life within Man; in effect saying, "Thou art God." Provisos of equal time are not served by one viewpoint having media access to two hundred million people in prime time while opposing viewpoints are provided with a soapbox on the corner. Not everyone tells the truth. Operational note: these sections may be taken out of numerical sequence: rearrange them to suit yourself for optimum clarity. Turn over your test papers and begin

        -------
        Against Intuition - gives us safety through Web of Trust.
        WOT Community - gives us security through unity.
        Thank you all
        G7W {G.O.M}
        http://g7w.net/

  4. User picture
    • Anonymous on Thu 30 Apr 2009
    • 01:07:23 PM UTC

    WOT

    WOT is trusted.A lot of security sites and download sites are backing and supporting WOT.No one is forcing you to have WOT.If you do not like WOT thats your opinion and option.Allthough I believe most folks here would disagree.Its called freedom of choice.(G.O.M.with Honours).

  5. User picture
    • 3Dsound on Thu 30 Apr 2009
    • 04:20:53 PM UTC

    WOT? Trustworthy? Mostly no

    We are getting quite far afield from my original inquiry. If someone wants to move this discussion to someplace else (or not), that's fine with me (although please leave a trail, so I can follow it).

    Anyway, neither "cod head" nor "g7w" address my concern that WIT applies an inappropriate metric to the vast majority of the websites it rates. This matters because WOT is a recommended plug-in. Which it should be, for detecting and broadcasting the nefarious contents of sites that pose a genuine security risk. However, WOT's "recommended" endorsement (thoughtlessly awarded, IMHO) means that WOT's ratings for all sites receive equal validation.

    Problems arise because WOT inappropriately applies its algorithms to sites that are outside of it's security focus. Simply put, WOT was not designed to assess factual veracity, only malignant intent. That difference works against websites publishing information (pop-under ads, for example, but various political views as well) that many WOT-raters dislike. As a result, WOT operates as a rogue program whose operations must be constrained to ensure continued web health.

    • User picture
      • Sami on Thu 30 Apr 2009
      • 05:06:00 PM UTC

      Re: Security?

      inappropriately applies its algorithms to sites that are outside of it's security focus

      How is that inappropriate? We designed the system for computing reputations and it can be applied to any topic, not only security.

      not designed to assess factual veracity, only malignant intent

      Actually, we measure trust, which covers both for most people. If the information on a website is unreliable, I wouldn't trust it. The same applies if the site attacks my computer.

      works against websites publishing information (pop-under ads, for example, but various political views as well) that many WOT-raters dislike

      We tell you how much other users trust the website you are visiting and you are free to disagree or ignore this information if you like. What's the harm in that?

      operates as a rogue program whose operations must be constrained

      Yes, it's way too easy to share information on the Internet. Soon it will be almost impossible to make an honest living by scamming people online. Perhaps we should have a central news agency, which filters out all the inappropriate information?

    • User picture
      • c۞g on Thu 30 Apr 2009
      • 06:33:25 PM UTC

      re: WOT? Trustworthy? Mostly no

      3Dsound
      you're a disappointment; possibly a mere instigator...

      Problems arise because WOT inappropriately applies its algorithms to sites that are outside of it's security focus.

      First, would you kindly explain to me the mechanics of how WOT applies it's algorithms? Surely, you must know to make a statement as such.

      Secondly, security focus

      security (defined)
      1. freedom from danger, risk, etc.; safety
      2. freedom from care, anxiety, or doubt; well-founded confidence
      3. something that secures or makes safe; protection; defense

        :

      4. precautions taken to guard against crime, attack, sabotage, espionage, etc

      Your implied definition to security is restrictive to that likened to an antivirus program. WOT's focus on security has a much broader scope as does the definition of the word. Think of WOT as your security blanket, not the medication you require when you are sick, but that which comforts you from fear while keeping you safe and snug. The Internet is a vastness, a cloud (current niche) and WOT is the rays of sunshine bursting through those clouds.
      -------
      Against Intuition - gives us safety through Web of Trust.
      WOT Community - gives us security through unity.
      Thank you all
      G7W {G.O.M}
      http://g7w.net/

  6. User picture
    • 3Dsound on Thu 30 Apr 2009
    • 05:17:15 PM UTC

    "Perhaps we should have a

    "Perhaps we should have a central news agency, which filters out all the inappropriate information?"

    Yes, I imagine that would be the WOT ideal. But not mine.

    Your refusal to distinguish between qualitative value and quantitative danger betrays WOT's limitations and the reasons WOT must be classified as a threat to information exchange.

    • User picture
      • Sami on Thu 30 Apr 2009
      • 05:42:00 PM UTC

      Re: War is peace

      Yes, I imagine that would be the WOT ideal.

      Sorry, I forgot the </sarcasm> tag. The add-on doesn't filter anything, unless you want it to.

      But not mine.

      It sure sounded like that when just a moment ago you wanted our operations to be constrained.

      refusal to distinguish between qualitative value and quantitative danger

      I'm not refusing to distinguish between the two, I was just telling you that the system doesn't care why you trust a website. You can tell us in the comments if you prefer though.

      must be classified as a threat to information exchange

      So, you want to suppress reputation information, because it's a threat to information exchange? Is it the opposite day again?

      • User picture
        • 3Dsound on Thu 30 Apr 2009
        • 06:11:45 PM UTC

        WOT's news filtering protocol

        Sami, you're being disingenuous when there's no reason to be.

        My impulse to curb WOT's excesses comes from WOT's global -- and inappropriate -- intent to catalogue all websites by a suite of criteria that only legitimately applies to some. The vast majority of websites are not security risks, and thus, the WOT "trustworthiness" criteria function as a news filtering protocol. That protocol constitutes a threat to web communications, as you seem to agree.

        WOT needs to remove itself from the news filtering business and focus on security, where its protocols have value.

        • User picture
          • Sami on Thu 30 Apr 2009
          • 06:50:27 PM UTC

          Re: News filtering

          "trustworthiness" criteria function as a news filtering protocol

          We don't stop users from accessing websites.

          That protocol constitutes a threat to web communications, as you seem to agree.

          If someone voluntarily chooses not to visit a website, it does not constitute a threat to web communications.

  7. User picture
    • cotojo on Thu 30 Apr 2009
    • 06:13:43 PM UTC

    Perhaps...

    "Perhaps we should have a central news agency, which filters out all the inappropriate information?"

    Maybe you prefer the likes of Phorm to watch your every move? Or the 'Interception Modernisation Program' which would require ISP's to track every IM, webpage, email etc.?

    WOT is not merely community driven, as has already been pointed out as it also uses information from many sites. Maybe you don't like then either as they can block the sites through Hosts files, or add them to blacklists for various legitimate reasons?

    Sorry, but if you don't like the way that WOT works then maybe you should uninstall it and use the out-of-date Site Advisor as provided by McAfee. Those of us who play an active role in rating sites do so with an open mind, and also rate fairly and justly, and we also overturn wrong decisions and advise those who want advice on how to clean up their sites and much more.

    Colin
    http://freepcsecurity.co.uk
    "If you have knowledge, let others light their candles with it" - Winston Churchill

  8. User picture
    • 3Dsound on Thu 30 Apr 2009
    • 06:14:58 PM UTC

    And of course, WOT *does*

    And of course, WOT *does* filter because it is a recommended plug-in that is promoted as being a way to remove "untrustworthy" content -- which includes both malware and information that some users simply dislike. The WOT's whole reason for existing is to filter out content.

    • User picture
      • Sami on Thu 30 Apr 2009
      • 06:34:00 PM UTC

      Re: And of course

      WOT *does* filter because it is a recommended plug-in

      If users want to voluntarily configure the add-on to block sites that have a poor reputation, it's their choice. The add-on doesn't block access to anything by default.

      whole reason for existing is to filter out content

      If it were, wouldn't it say "filters out bad content" on the front page instead of "warns you about risky websites"? Our purpose is to inform users, not to filter content.

  9. User picture
    • Anonymous on Thu 30 Apr 2009
    • 06:21:45 PM UTC

    Recommended

    I presume those that recommend WOT think its a good programme.I have rated sites like KKK as hateful content.Fair judgment in my mind.Nothing in this world is ever black and white.I think you like your own sound to much 3Dsound.But that is just my opinion.(G.O.M.with Honours).

  10. User picture
    • cotojo on Thu 30 Apr 2009
    • 06:26:53 PM UTC

    WOT

    If it filtered out so much information that some users simply dislike then why is the number of users increasing?

    Malware and sites with malicious content will be rated as such, but many information sites are rated as safe, providing they are legitimate sites and not linked to the promotion of malware or contain malicious downloads.

    Colin
    http://freepcsecurity.co.uk
    "If you have knowledge, let others light their candles with it" - Winston Churchill

  11. User picture
    • c۞g on Thu 30 Apr 2009
    • 06:41:03 PM UTC

    web site

    Curious 3Dsound.
    what is the URL for your website(s)?
    -------
    Against Intuition - gives us safety through Web of Trust.
    WOT Community - gives us security through unity.
    Thank you all
    G7W {G.O.M}
    http://g7w.net/

    • User picture
      • 3Dsound on Thu 30 Apr 2009
      • 07:00:19 PM UTC

      recommended as a plug-in because it filters content

      "Our purpose is to inform users, not to filter content."

      Except it's recommended as a plug-in because of its filtering capability.

      I remain frustrated that we are talking at cross purposes, but I thank all of you for your comments and the trouble you took to make them. -3D

      • User picture
        • c۞g on Thu 30 Apr 2009
        • 07:15:59 PM UTC

        leaving?

        Leaving?

        Umm.. you forgot to reply

        Also, where is this link that states WOT is a "filtering" addon?
        Google shows nothing

        filtering seems to be something you've conjured up on your own.

        And while you're supplying URLs, please include your sites as well.
        -------
        Against Intuition - gives us safety through Web of Trust.
        WOT Community - gives us security through unity.
        Thank you all
        G7W {G.O.M}
        http://g7w.net/

      • User picture
        • BobJam (not verified) on Thu 30 Apr 2009
        • 09:49:36 PM UTC

        Who

        Who's doing the reccomending? User to user, or are you talking about specific websites. If it's websites, can you list some?

      • User picture
        • BobJam (not verified) on Thu 30 Apr 2009
        • 10:04:39 PM UTC

        Probably the wrong place for this.

        While most members try to be fair in their judgments (myself included), this is probably the wrong place for you to get any acceptance of a WOT failure. Most of us are dyed-in-the-wool WOT users and defenders.

        It's like going to the Churchill Centre and slamming Churchill (Pat Buchanan's views are not shared, while Chris Matthews' are). What did you expect here? And, BTW, just because we don't share your views doesn't necessarily mean you're not welcome. WOT users are also a very friendly lot (with the exception of us GOM's).

        I'm afraid you've landed in the Lions Den.

        Don't misunderstand. To paraphrase what I said earlier, I think WOT users are a group that tries very hard to be unbiased . . . that's an essential characteristic for giving a fair rating. But if it quacks like a duck, walks like a duck . . .

  12. User picture
    • cotojo on Thu 30 Apr 2009
    • 07:41:30 PM UTC

    Filtering

    Filtering is in the hands of the end user through their personal settings. There they have the ability to change the systems settings to a customized version which they may prefer.

    Content is not filtered but warning screens are in place and the user has the choice to ignore the warning or add the site to their whitelist depending upon their own personal preferences.

    Many users have come across sites that have been poorly rated, not necessarily by WOT users and when it is brought up there are many that will look at the site and collectively correct the rating. By the same token, there are also a great many sites that have no rating and as they are found ratings would be added and in many cases, comments added as to why it was rated, be it good, bad or indifferent.

    Colin
    http://freepcsecurity.co.uk
    "If you have knowledge, let others light their candles with it" - Winston Churchill

  13. User picture
    • bdblsax on Tue 06 Oct 2009
    • 05:28:49 PM UTC

    HOW TO DELETE WOT

    I have installed WOT on my VISTA laptop last month via Firefox and I am not thrilled.

    Please advise how do you get rid of this program which I do not have a need for.

    • User picture
      • Sami on Tue 06 Oct 2009
      • 05:30:27 PM UTC

      Re: Uninstalling

      You can uninstall any Firefox add-on from Tools -> Add-ons -> Extensions.