riverbendmedical.com é seguro?

@fjwelte, if there was a legitimate security concern identified in the past that is now resolved, shouldn't WOT's algorithms include a function to remove the blacklist? Otherwise, what's the point of asking a web master to take action? All good deeds will be duly punished. Moreover, your comment doesn't address the fact that WOT has rated, and continues to rate, "vendor reliability" in the red. This web site doesn't conduct any e-commerce, as I pointed out in my ***** comment. It is just a listing of the office locations, their hours, contact info, and brief biographical sketches of the physicians. As a patient at Riverbend, I find that all of the information is correct. The web site does not solicit the public to provide any personal information. Telephone numbers are provided for first contact. So, even if a hacker had previously inserted malicious code on the web site (now resolved according to you), that would still not be an issue of vendor reliability. Privacy, perhaps, but not vendor reliability. I stand by the opinions of my first comment. (1) WOT's red zone rating on this web site is driven by a troll, at least as to vendor reliability. (2) WOT's algorithms have been, and continue to be, vulnerable to trolls providing low ratings and hackers providing high ratings. If WOT expects other web sites to become more reliable, then WOT needs to demonstrate the same level of exemplary conduct.

I have two comments. The first concerns the web site riverbendmedical.com, while the other applies to WOT. Riverbend is the largest medical group in Western Massachusetts. The low ranking for the web site mystifies me. Someone didn't like the listing of Riverbend's office locations, or their list of physicians? Basically, all the web site contains is a biography of the practice, a brief thumbnail sketch of the physicians, and a bunch of phone numbers to call to become a patient or for other purposes. It seems apparent to me that someone with an axe to grind posted the lowest possible rankings for malicious purposes. My second comment concerns WOT. WOT is only useful for more popular sites that attract enough rankings to bury the trolls. In this regard, I've noticed for years that WOT's algorithms seem to encourage anonymous and malicious ratings of less popular web sites. WOT will give a web site a low ranking and allow its "pop up of doom " to appear on very good web sites that have had the misfortune of being flamed by a single person who happens to be a troll. WOT really needs to revise its rating methodology for web sites that have only been reviewed once or twice. I suspect that the opposite is also true, that a really malicious web site can get a good reputation if two scammers provide good rankings.