Rated 5 out of 5 stars

I like to keep my Internet surfing on the safe side

This review is for a previous version of the add-on (20151126). 

Very Good, Indeed Rated 5 out of 5 stars

I have used WOT for some time, and have full trust in it.

As to the person saying about visited URL's being sent, I'm sorry to say this, but everything, including the browser itself, anonymously sends that out. They use the information, mainly, to improve their product and service. Nothing online, is ever 100% private, anyway, so if you'd rather trade security for privacy (in your head) then by all means, do so, but there's no reason to say this addon is untrustworthy, due to your own ignorance about the internet.

WOT: Your last update may have caused a "could not be verified for use in Firefox" certificate issue. May want to check into that. :)

This review is for a previous version of the add-on (20151126). 

Perfect for researchers Rated 5 out of 5 stars

This addon has made me think twice before clicking through to sites that I otherwise would have blindly charged into. As a student and researcher of all things music and marketing, I find myself on new sites several every times a week, and a percentage of them are not safe. The WOT addon and community have provided some excellent guidance and tips to keep me off spammy sites and malware from my computer.

This review is for a previous version of the add-on (20151126). 

Not trustworthy Rated 1 out of 5 stars

The add-on sends the URL of every website visited to WOT servers. For reasons explained in my previous review (which was deleted by the Mozilla editorial staff without consulting me) several users have reported visited URL information being used nefariously.

Note to Mozilla editorial staff: I am not reporting a bug, nor am I spamming. Users should be aware that their web surfing may not remain private when using WOT.

This review is for a previous version of the add-on (20151126). 

No news here

Dear users, this is nothing new. It's how security add-ons work: the add-on's servers detect which sites are safe and warn the user when a site isn't safe. Otherwise add-ons would merely be decorations on your browser :)

version foe mobile please Rated 3 out of 5 stars

Useful as this addon is, I can't believe there isn't a version that can work with Firefox for Android. Considering that mobile browsing is very popular now.

This review is for a previous version of the add-on (20151126). 

On the way

Thanks for the suggestion, we've caught on to the trend and a mobile app is in the pipeline. It should be in your hands shortly.

does not work from this evening Rated 5 out of 5 stars

does not work from this evening, because this module is not a signated by firefox module.
thanks for this good module, i like it, but do you sign your module?
thanks a lot,
best regards.

This review is for a previous version of the add-on (20151126). 

Great Addon Rated 5 out of 5 stars

I love P2P so much thank you for making this add-on! To ppl complaining about how P2P isnt as good as 'experts' or 'professionals'; It is easy to sift through 'stupid' reviews, such as yours. The problem only arises when there is no explanation left behind the rating ;) . Maybe there can be a feature to flag a review as a troll review(if there isnt one already(its been awhile since ive had to use this))

This review is for a previous version of the add-on (20151113). 

Cumple su función. Rated 5 out of 5 stars

En las nuevas actualizaciones al entrar en una pagina con mala reputación (icono rojo), no aparece la ventana de ver los comentarios ni la valoración y por lo tanto no deja navegar en dichas paginas.

This review is for a previous version of the add-on (20151113). 

Rated 5 out of 5 stars

Excellent application

This review is for a previous version of the add-on (20150708). 

Love this app Rated 5 out of 5 stars

So useful, handy and full of nice information. It definitely changed my way of browsing the web. Now, I feel protected!

This review is for a previous version of the add-on (20150708). 

Rated 5 out of 5 stars


This review is for a previous version of the add-on (20150708). 

Bias add on relying on opinions. No experts here. Rated 1 out of 5 stars

EDIT: for developers response.:
See the problem with these "peers" is they are not experts. Like i said when i visit a site I've used for years and KNOW its safe, imagine my surprise when I see your tool red tagged it. After researching i see it's due to a bias community.

With that in mind what good is your add on for the sites that are new to me?

When it comes to the safety of my kids, I'd prefer expert opinions. Not Tom and Dicks opinion of X dot com.

WOT is not a safety tool, its a commentary tool. Red tagged sites having no malware, just someone had a beef with the webmaster, then uses your forums to group red bomb the site? Ya, that's proud "peers" you got there.

A ranking site without credibility is worthless. What you call "peers" are in fact trolls.
-End Edit.

I'm surprised this add on even has 3 stars tbh. I didn't have to use it for long at all to see the site ratings were biased. Red tagging completely legit sites while questionable sites were green tagged.

I done some research and words can't express, just a horrible add on. Google Wot scam and find out for yourself. Legit complaints go on and on.

Btw, I'm no bot and I'm not affiliated with any website, which seems to be what these people are attributing the 1 stars to. It gets 1 star from me because it is proven to have 0 credibility. For a ratings site cred is everything.

Read through the 1 stars if you have time. Hardly bot's with a grudge I'd say. Multiple valid complaints. This add on needs to be passed over.

This review is for a previous version of the add-on (20150708). 

People also appreciate their peers, not only "experts"

It does not surprise us that searching "X+Scam" results in negative content: It is, after all, a very bias search.

That said, a lot of those type of articles are a result of ongoing slanderous campaigns by certain interest groups that have issues with specific ratings.

A large and active community of users share their user experiences regarding various sites via WOT. We have always stated and took pride in this. You as an individual may only seek "expert opinions" however, many others are interested in the opinions & recommendations of their peers.

Guter Gedanke schlecht ausgeführt. Rated 2 out of 5 stars

Anfänglich dachte ich, dass WOT gut ist und habe es für meine Mutter installiert, da sie nicht so web affin ist wie ich. Aber als ich gesehen, habe welche Vielzahl von Websiten mit fadenscheinigen Begründungen als "bedrohlich" gekennzeichnet wurden, habe ich gemerkt, dass hier eine im Gedanken grundsätzlich gute Sache schnell aus dem Ruder gelaufen ist.

This review is for a previous version of the add-on (20150708). 

1 star reviews are from malware websites Rated 5 out of 5 stars

Tried this add-on since it suddenly got so many 1 star reviews. Actually it is a very good add-on. Most negative reviews are from the owners of scam or malware websites.

This review is for a previous version of the add-on (20150708). 

Rated 2 out of 5 stars

Снижаю оценку, и в первую очередь из за неадекватных оценок ряда сайтов, такое чувство что в этом расширении работает целая группировка недоумков спецом засирающих сайты которые на самом деле никакой опасности не несут, ориентироваться стало трудно и оценке расширения я теперь доверяю на 45% не больше. Странно так же то что на некоторых сайтах комменты положительные но каким то невероятным образом репутация сайта стоит минимальная. В конце концов оценку сайтов ведут не профессионалы, значит и оценка в WOT непрофисиональна и под час не соответствует действительности. Думаю разработчиком не мешало бы заняться теперь уже репутацией собственного приложения и прекратить накрутки и борьбу конкурентов в приложении. И не мешало бы иметь помимо пользовательских оценок, рядом профессиональную оценку сайта по ряду параметров.

This review is for a previous version of the add-on (20150708).  This user has a previous review of this add-on.

I do NOT trust this site.They are not a web of TRUST- They are not experts on scams / cons- they are ordinary people Rated 1 out of 5 stars

I once gave this site 5 stars - I actually thought the people who were rating sites had "some" sort of expertise - or were customers - or had been scammed / conned and were warning others - I thought they were helping stop me getting conned or scammed --- But no ---- IMHO, the most voting is done by Platinum moderators who have a vote that far exceeds any normal members vote. These are not experts but actually are people who seem to spend a lot of time on Twitter. - They have given reds and beware possibly illegal - dangerous to children - to a site that has no child photos - no "adult" photos and no adult content at all- NOTHING ADULT about the site - Yet it warns people to keep their kids away from the site - and NOTHING AT ALL DIRECTED AT CHILDREN - nothing for sale for children – Zero adult content and Zero to do with children --- And yet this was done by about 3 people – these few people, who were not customers and had not "used" the site- they were " Platinum Moderators " - WHY is this allowed that some members have a platinum status? How can it then be a community based opinions when some members have one vote and others have 10 votes or 50 votes or 200 votes ? How could it not be abused and these moderators not feel as if they can retaliate and “flex their muscle” when they feel like it – especially when they only have to respond “It’s my opinion “

This is not a web of trust - IMHO - it is a social group of bullies –
When contacted the support team said " NOTHING "
They didn't reply at all - they REFUSED to respond to numerous emails- nothing. So don't bother trying to contact them as they wont reply !

They are no different than twitter or facebook opinion based .

WOT should be called - WEBSITE OPINIONS –

It isn't described this way in their title, IMO the title gives you and did me, the impression I was getting some sort of experts advice from people who had been scammed by these types –

But no- These are opinions - only - and as stated by WOT admin - a member ( a platinum member ) can feel they don't trust a site and they can give a red and not have to change it- because it is their opinion !

Yet, I understood it to mean these people were warning us about sites that they 100% KNEW were scams and cons - but no- they don't have to be customers- in fact - they only have to "visit" the site and their platinum vote can easily out vote REAL CUSTOMERS.

Unless you have enough customers - who are willing to download this add-on -
then willing to join the site and
then willing to vote on your web site –
even if you have good customers willing to do this –

Unless you have enough customers like this to out weigh the few single platinum votes-
Your sites deemed to stay red.

And this has been done by a few people who have platinum status and they aren't experts - they are not even customers of the site !


Just google abuse WOT / Moderators./ abuse / web of trust / moderators or web of trust / moderators forum / abuse or web of trust / abuse
It is these platinum moderators who are abusing the power IMO - They hide behind " it's my opinion " and don’t have to give any real basis for giving a site a red.

Check google - see for yourself. This is my opinion on this product. Do NOT download it.
Read all negative feedback here first – then the negative feedback on Internet Explorer and then Chrome and then google it - read - I'm not talking about one or two things, that happened ten years ago – because, I was very suspicious about anyone giving a 1 star - as I thought WOT was 5 stars - I gave them 5 stars and I also told people to download the add-on – I’m talking about a lot - but I now understand how it works and how they have these platinum members / moderators - and how these people have excessively large amount of voting power - too much - IMHO –
Their vote should either equal or at the maximum - double any normal vote - at the very most.

I've read where it's thousands of votes but I have also read where it's 200 votes –
The fact is it isn't equal – and if they claim the WOT community are the ones making these decisions then the community should be equal.

How can it be equal when one person has one vote and another has 10 votes or 50 votes or 200 votes ?

I went and looked at some of the platinum moderators voting – who and how they voted and how many times. - and was shocked -- Look at their feedback ( votes ) on websites - I was shocked.

I was once a person who gave them 5 stars - Not anymore. They can excuse anything because it is an opinion of the member- who just happens to be a platinum moderator and therefore their opinion outweighs a normal members vote by ? 200 to one ??? - who knows exactly. But it is a massive difference and one that doesn't equal a fair opinion - IMHO. This actually allows a few to control and this is wrong - again- in my humble opinion.
The reply said to contact support- They didn't respond when contacted !
enter into GOOGLE these words
abuse / web of trust / moderators
web of trust / moderators forum / abuse
web of trust / abuse

REPLY TO WOT Services comments:
I cannot see where I can reply to your comments- so have edited my review :
You stated:
We have a very intricate algorithm that balances ratings, and protects against such biases and manipulations you are referring to
Your intricate algorithm that balances ratings – it seems far fetched to describe this as not manipulating the ratings.
Why "balance" the ratings at all ? Why not allow ALL votes to be equal ?
Why give some people ( Platinum members ) a more power vote ? When they are average - non professional- not employed WOT staff members and therefore, paid no wages to rate sites - just ordinary everyday Facebook and Twitter type of people -
so why don’t they not have the exact same voting power as any other ordinary person using the WOT rating system? Why give them this extra voting powers ?
WOT gives the impression it is an equal system- but you have just stated you "balance" these votes. (intricate algorithm that balances ratings)
The ratings shouldn’t need balancing. They should be all equal votes. Members, Platinum – Gold- whatever- should not have a more powerful vote than ordinary members. IMHO this leads to those who are unemployable, sitting on a computer for hours on end doing nothing but “rate” sites.
Rating sites that someone has never used, never actually had any real contact with and just brandishing a site unsafe – without any real valid reason.
A site can be called “ I don’t trust” ( a red rating ) because they don’t have an SSL (HTTPS ) – Even though they don’t accept credit cards – so therefore don’t need an SSL. – they have Paypal instead and Paypal has the security ( SSL )
A site can be called untrustworthy because it has ads ! Google doesn’t give their adsense to just anyone but having Google ads gives them the excuse to bully and call a site “unsafe” because the Google ads have tracking – Google is doing the tracking – not the actual site the ads are on – but this is enough to claim “unsafe” .
Also- having a registration form (which anyone can write – name : John Citizen – address “ Earth” Phone : 1234567890 ) where someone need not put their real information – ( it’s a legal reason for some businesses, there must be a registration form of some kind ) - according to these people, this means the site is untrustworthy .
Three things – and when questioned about it instead of fixing it they them deemed the site unsafe for children.
These are not valid reasons to claim a site is not safe for children - ESPECIALLY when the site has:
NO ADULT CONTENT – AT ALL- NO FOUL LANGUAGE- NO CHILDRENS PHOTOS- NO CHILDRENS ANYTHING – Yet having nothing whatsoever to do with children – the WOT moderators deemed the site unsafe for children. With absolutely 100% NOTHING on the site to do with children and NOTHING of any type of adult content and nothing like gambling or anything even similar to suggest this is not safe for kids is slanderous – what’s worse, WOT support did nothing about this- didn’t even reply to the many emails.
You also stated :
WOT highlights the fact that reputation ratings are based on the community and the user's experience and their opinions.
How can it be based on users experience - when they don't have to be customers ?
In fact, actual customers vote have a lower ranking / lower rating power - if they are just a normal WOT member, than a Platinum member - who has never even used the site- let alone been a customer of the site?
USER'S EXPERIENCE should mean just that- they have USED the site !
I was silly enough to believe this meant the person had actually USED the site or USED the product or was a CUSTOMER – But no. Their vote outweighs actual real customers.
They should be either actual customers or have been on the site for more than a few minutes. Especially when they are claiming a site is unsafe for children. – Instead of clicking on the home page and then doing a rating based on what ? !
How can the support refuse to reply to at least 5 emails asking for help ( it was more like 8 – but to be on the safe side I will claim 5 emails )
How can they claim a site that has ZERO to do with children- be unsafe for children ?
How can WOT admin allow this and ignore constant requests for help?
You also stated:
From our experience a positive approach is more effective
How can going to the forums asking for help- begging and crying to them to please help me fix this and ignore all my pleas - then add more Reds- with some Moderators stating " same as others " and leaving a “ I don't trust " with a reply (similar to ) this will teach you to respect our forums ( How dare I question their ratings in the forums and ask nicely to help me fix it- ? )
How can that not be called a “positive” approach ( on my behalf ) begging the community for help- pleading with them- CRYING even to them with please help me ! I offered proof the site was a good honest decent site – but was ignored.
I got the same response in the community forums as I got from the support team- NOTHING.
It seems the only time you have bothered to reply to me is via this feedback.

This review is for a previous version of the add-on (20150708). 

Community reputation ratings

Hi Trusha.
It is very natural that site owners as yourself will be upset with reputations ratings their domains receive. It is the main reason WOT receives slanderous reviews and negative posts such as the ones you referred to.

It's important to note that WOT highlights the fact that reputation ratings are based on the community and the user's experience and their opinions. Millions of users rate and review on a daily basis. The high volume of users tend to balance the overall reputation ratings.

Your claim that ratings are only based on a specific group of users is misleading and inaccurate. We have a very intricate algorithm that balances ratings, and protects against such biases and manipulations you are referring to.

You can always approach the community if you believe that your site was wrongly rated with your reasons. From our experience a positive approach is more effective.

This link will get you started: https://www.mywot.com/en/faq/site-owners-support/review-request

this addon is not what it claims to be Rated 1 out of 5 stars

La réalité de cet Addon est une collecte, un agrégats d'avis sur des sites pris partout dans le monde des utilisateurs.
voilà la description qui en est faite.
le problème est que ça laisse une grande partie à des évaluations éronnées et orientées selon des opinions, des interets, des lobbying qui traversent notre monde.
la Réalité de l'évaluation par l'utilisateur, est l'ignorance, le manque de compréhension, de préférence sur la religion, la discrimination ethnique et raciale, la calomnie sur des entreprises pouvant arranger des lobby, ou simplement du push par intérêt.
avec toutes ces failles, l'utilisateur lambda n'a aucune chance de s'y retrouver.

le plus grave étant cette prétention à protéger des logiciels malveillants et "autres menaces techniques", ce qui fait dire sur certains sites conseillant l'accelération de firefox, de remplacer la protection firefox (about:config) par wot !
pure folie ...
préférez https-everywhere + noscript + ghostery, 'cause WOT is definitely not what it claims to be.

This review is for a previous version of the add-on (20150708). 

Not trustworthy! Rated 1 out of 5 stars

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.

This review is for a previous version of the add-on (20150708). 

Trusted by millions

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.

Ґуд! Rated 5 out of 5 stars

Усе працює чудово!

This review is for a previous version of the add-on (20150708). 

Works great Rated 5 out of 5 stars

it worked immediately and effectively-thank you!

This review is for a previous version of the add-on (20150708).