A friend sent me an email saying that I need to try this program out. It's called Web of Trust (WOT). After looking at the site, it seems that it could be a very useful tool to identify bad sites.

Have any of you heard of this and does it work?

www.mywot.com/

I believe I've heard of wot before, but have not had experience with it.

Not tried that one. I use McAfee Site Advisor extension to get an idea of the safety of a site.

Thanks to your friend for introducing you to WOT. Since you are not too familiar with it, I’ll give you the summary:
Web of Trust is a people-driven security tool that warns Internet users about dangerous and suspicious websites. WOT gets its site reputation data from two sources; hundreds of thousands of users in the WOT community and trusted sources such as listings of phishing sites. The ratings are based on standards of trustworthiness, vendor reliability, privacy and child safety.

When you search using Google, Yahoo!, or MSN, or tools like Wikipedia or DIGG, WOT adds tiny color-coded icons after your search results to show which of the sites are reliable. Green indicates that a site is safe, yellow alerts you to be cautious and red warns you of potential danger.

Reputation data is recalculated every 30 minutes, so it is fresh. Many Internet users who have used WOT have noticed that the user driven approach often gives more accurate ratings than automated ones like SiteAdvisor. Furthermore, WOT provides reputation regarding "vendor reliability" and "child safety", where human input is crucial.

Please check it out. Web of Trust

Thanks Mister2-- I think I would rather use a known ingredient (McAfee) rather than one that is relatively unknown.

I've been using both WOT and SiteAdvisor for months.

WOT seems to be more concerned with user safety, and less concerned about offending sites with negative ratings.

On the other hand, I have no knowledge about the trustworthiness of WOT itself.
The McAfee brand has an advantage there since it's been around longer.

Also, WOT has more rating criteria, but it doesn't show you user comments like SiteAdvisor does, so you are often left to wonder why a site is rated a particular way.
With SiteAdvisor, you can easily see how and why McAfee and other users rated the site one way or the other, and you can decide whether you agree or disagree.

Hi,

I am using WOT because its ratings are more accurate and it listens to its users. Don´t take my word for it - read what these guys say:
http://clif-notes.blogspot.com/2007/12/wot-plugin-helps-identify-bad-websites.html
http://billmullins.wordpress.com/2008/02/26/want-the-best-in-free-internet-security-get-people-driven-security-with-WOT/

Curious why there isn't a web interface into the list of sites?

...and why all of a sudden new users are posting about this?

My thoughts exactly. An Anon OP, then two post plugging WOT from 1st post new users. Highly suspicious if you ask me.

Possibly but google makes CC a happenin' place .... plus it does seem like a worthwhile application.

Well the first 1-post user post about this (debsalmi) might very well be staff reaction from WOT to posting about their product

http://www.mywot.com/fi/blog/2008/3/59

As said, Google does make CC the happenin' place I personally do also use WOT, alongside SA which is my preferred method of 'reporting' websites.

Posted: Fri Apr 11; 2008 5:28 pm Post subject:
Curious why there isn't a web interface into the list of sites?

You can enter URL at http://www.mywot.com/en/demo
and view the site rating of any site just to test WOT. But to really use it you need to have the download.

www.castlecops.com

What does it mean to have vendor reliability and privacy a ranking of one green object?

Yes, interesting results for CC:

Trustworthiness - 4/5
Vendor Reliability - 1/5
Privacy - 1/5
Child Safety - 3/5

Whereas McAfee reports us green with no problems.

Having spent a few hours here I think the latter result is nearer the mark.