mywot.com é seguro?

Good site is good. Bad site is bad. But when Good site is treated as bad, there should be Ethical issues, especially when they don't leave any explain and they don't want to do any inspection, only they leave is: "Finally, please note that all comments and ratings posted on the mywot.com website express the views of the authors, and do not necessarily reflect the views of the owners and administrator of this site. WOT operates as a hosting service provider as defined in the Directive 2000/31/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on certain aspects of information society services, in particular electronic commerce in the Internal Market, and in the Finnish Act on the Provision of Information Society Services (458 / 2002). WOT does not monitor or otherwise control the contents posted on the website by the content providers. WOT is therefore not legally liable for the contents." Could be a person so innocent like this after he give a color to a good site as red as monkey ass? And I thought our reputation is protected by law, do we? ------ "it tells you how much other people trust the site", I don't think so, WOT not tell how much other people trust the site, but only tell the voter like or dislike the site if he don't want to leave a reasonable comment showing why he vote the site down. That's why I suggest WOT adding a new feature that force every negative vote should go with a reasonable comment, or the vote should be canceled. That's the only thing you could do to give more fair to both site user and site master.

Given excellent ratings for all categories - but not without reservations on trust. In my view its ratings still include include both "false positives and negatives" e.g. a site I consider to be operating a scam has a sub domain under a commercial hosting company and inherits its positive rating.