To try the thousands of add-ons available here, download Mozilla Firefox, a fast, free way to surf the Web!Close
Choose from thousands of extra features and styles to make Firefox your own.Close
|User since||August 27, 2012|
|Number of add-ons developed||0 add-ons|
|Average rating of developer's add-ons||Not yet rated|
normally I don't write reviews, but in this case I shall make an exception.
I have a few points with which I am happy and a few with which I'm not. Let's begin with the good critics.
My overall experience is, highly bad rated sites have reason to be rated bad and it is an easy to use Add-on. But, and that is important. The ratings of web of trust cannot, as the add-on works until now, be trusted.
The ratings are not transparent which makes them not trustworthy. Yes, it may be user rated. Yes, you can vistit untrusted sites with one click. Yes, you can read a few comments. Yes, if you disagree you can rate it on your own and never here from the site again. But what about the reputation of falsely acclaimed sites?
An Add-On as WOT has the obligation to secure the correctness of the ratings. As it is, the Add-On ruins reputations and then, if you have something against that, you have to take action to correct it. That is the wrong way around.
You can't see who made ratings. You can't know why they rated a site like they did. Here WOT needs some improvement. If you have the time to rate a site you also have the time to write a comment. Important is the word write. WOT gives options, so you can use prewritten comments. That is absolutely not good. The normal user of WOT is no professional. Distinctions between maleware, spam, virus or a trojan cannot be made. Many people don't know the difference and proclaiming a false threat from a website is untrustworthy. Using those terms at prewritten texts is a good way to mislead comments.
How to fix: delete prewritten comments. Every user that rates has to describe why he rated it the way he did. Not only bad comments mind. Also the good ratings have to be written down. A rating has to have a reason, if not there cannot be a rating. If that is not given the ratings of WOT cannot be trusted on high terms. It's quite easy to counter that. You differ between four cetagories. If you rate any of them, have the user write why he rated every single category the way he did. that alone would make sure a user cannot easily misusse this tool.
This Add-on has the potential to be a great security measure, but for that it has to get transparent. It has to make sure site cannot be downrated just because a group can do it. Sure, there is the option to watch how trustworthy the rating is, but for that you have to visit the comments about a site. Which is, again, not good.
As it is, this little add-on works on quantity not on quality. You cannot trust it. All you can do right now with it, is to use it as indicator. If you have a badly rated site, you can be wary of the site, but nothing more.
You can make an exceptional tool with this, but you have to work on your quality management. That is the obligation of any company which wants to make safety tools. You, which means the WOT Company, have this obligation to deliver quality not quantity. I hope you change that, it's not such a hard task.
User control is an important part with community based tools. Take Wikipedia for starters, they used to give free acces for every person to write and change contents. That was used to mislead and to give false informations. Freedom is alright, but there's always someone that misuses this freedom.
I hope I receive a reply to this review from WOT.
As previously said: I like this tool and I will continue to use it. But make it trustworthy. Make it a great tool not just anything every other person can do.
Greetings from germany.
Let me correct one thing: I hope I will get a reply from WOT, but if you want to give me some links to your FAQs and so on, please let it be. Do not waste your and my time. I do not attack the company nor the tool in itself. It's just open and constructive critic. so if someone answers, do it the same way. The lamenting on every other comment that it's all userbased and so on is crap. But, in your defense, most badmouthing comments here are crap as well.
Edit 2: Answer to the programmer:
Seems I was too late for my last edit. I'm somewhat disappointed with your answer. It's the same all over again. I have read the last 3 to 4 pages of comments and honestly your, that much I give you, promptly delivered answer was nothing new. I could have written it myself.
I know how this tool works and the way your ratings work is why your tool cannot be trustworthy. That was the whole point of my statement.
It's also important to note that our rating system is a meritocracy where ratings are not equally reliable, and how much weight someone's ratings have is not public information, even to the users themselves. This is for the same reason as Google keeps the details behind their search engine rankings secret, to make the system more difficult to game:
I never ever said that you should reconsider your value system of which rating weights how much. All I said was: Have the user explain his rating, that is some important stuff. If users want to be anonym, just show maybe the first 3 letters of a username, mask the rest of it with ***. Make it a user choice if he wants to be anonym. the important part is the reason why it is rated the way it is. I pretty much understand how your system works, also I have some rough ideas on your ratingvalues. But your value might not be the value of a user. You don't want bad critics, I cannot imagine that you want them, so give the user a way to make his own rating value.
Even anonym, but reasoned, comments have, for me as enduser, high value. Because I see the reason. If someone cannot explain why he rated a site how he did. Or maybe because he rated it without quality standards I as user can decide how much value I give. As long as I'm a trusted rater I can undermine your system. It's not like I said change your whole program. Please consider this, it's no change to your system just quality improvement.
We don't have prewritten comments, we do have comment categories though. Users may select a category they feel best summarizes their comment. The category or the comments themselves have no affect on the reputations.
Your categories function for many many people as prewritten comments. I cannot believe that you are this ignorant of your own system that you don't know that. So please do not try to play me dumb. that won't do you good. I mean, it's your own reputation that will go downwards. I give and gave no reason that you could believe I'm badmouthing or that I don't have a clue how your system works.
I accept the fact that you don't get much critics that... how do I phrase this... that can be considered constructive. but mine is and you undermine yourself with such shabby answers. Everybody can read this.