Re: [directory-discuss] Should we ban "Web of Trust, WOT: Website Reputation Ratings"

[David Hedlund]

I've boiled down the text to the core issues here:

From http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2707869/posts

Web of Trust WOT Scam - possibly worst Internet scam
Ripoffreport.com ^

Posted on 2011-04-20 18:53:49 by DBCJR
This is supposedly a safe browser add-on that will help protect against 
dangerous or fraudulent websites. Users are supposed to rate sites good or bad. 
But WOT actively rewards users who specialize in giving negative reports. Some 
of their top-rated users have done tens of thousands of negative reports, and 
it is obvious they are not really rating sites accurately. WOT's own statistics 
show that the overwhelming majority of ratings are negative. The developers of 
WOT are in the business of selling security seals for websites, so they have a 
vested interest in making website owners afraid of negative ratings. It is 
typical for harmless websites to have negative ratings, which cause scary 
warning messages to pop up in the browser of anyone who has installed with WOT 
plugin. If the website owners aren't using WOT, they may never even know they 
have been targeted. At the same time, there are a number of dangerous or 
fraudulent sites which have no ratings or good ratings from WOT. Overall, the 
ratings are worthless to consumers and possibly very harmful to people running 
reputable online businesses. Then, when you realize that this plug-in is worse 
than useless and uninstall it, it is never really completely uninstalled, but 
leaves hidden traces behind, in the same way that spyware does. Stay away from 
this terrible product.

################
From 
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/wot-safe-browsing-tool/reviews/747946/
Not trustworthy! Rated 1 out of 5 stars

by Marcus Geier on September 19, 2015 · permalink · translate

I did a series of informal tests recently on several controversial subject 
areas (I'm a research professor) and quickly concluded that WOT is heavily 
biased toward certain powerful special interest groups. ANY information that 
contradicts them is downgraded despite the almost complete lack of negative 
reviews and a plethora of positive reviews, including numerous sites that I I 
know to be reliable. Evidence clearly proves that WOT is heavily biased and not 
to be trusted.

Response to WOT Services poster: The number of mechanisms in place to defend 
manipulations is irrelevant when the biases and manipulations are performed 
with the full knowledge and blessing of WOT, as it necessarily must be. WOT's 
documented sell-out and perversion of trust is not restricted to isolated 
exceptions as you are attempting to suggest, but is a chronic characteristic of 
WOT. I do not own any of the sites in question - I am 100% unbiased with no 
interest other than truth and exposure of corruption. The fact that WOT may be 
trusted by millions is an absurd statement that does nothing to make your case. 
Millions also trust pharmaceutical companies, doctors, fast-food restaurants 
and politicians to their great detriment.

Numerous examples abound regarding various alternative health therapy websites. 
(My tests were performed 2-3 years ago). For example, various sites pertaining 
to Jim Humble and MMS. Now, MMS is a thoroughly proven safe and wonderfully 
effective cure for many serious diseases and the websites in question are 
completely free of malware, disinformation or potential harm of any sort. The 
reviews were almost universally positive yet WOT gave them a dangerous rating. 
Why? The only possible reason can be manipulation by extremely powerful and 
well-funded special interest groups who stand to lose much as MMS becomes ever 
more popular. It is extremely well documented that the pharmaceutical industry 
employs a considerable number of expert shills whose sole purpose is to 
discredit alternative cures all over the Internet. Pharmaceutical companies 
also spend far more money on lobbying than on research as well. WOT is 
certainly not immune to payoffs, just like the recent snopes.com scandal. Other 
than MMS, there are countless additional examples, but the onus is on WOT to 
prove their honesty.

    Report this review

Trusted by millions

by WOT Services (Developer) on September 25, 2015 · permalink · translate

Hi Marcus.
WOT has many mechanisms in place to defend against such manipulation and biases. If you 
have an example to back your "informal tests" it would help us look into it and 
isolate any exception.
If you own such a site you can contact our support as a site owner.

WOT is trusted by a community of millions who rate, review and share their 
thoughts about sites.7