Misplaced Pages

WOT Services: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 21:50, 28 January 2015 editWeatherFug (talk | contribs)810 edits rm unsourced pov, replaced it with my very short, due weight , accurate summary. Consult a good admin if you like. Next time I will.← Previous edit Revision as of 22:17, 28 January 2015 edit undoScrapIronIV (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers33,329 edits Feel free.Next edit →
Line 37: Line 37:
==Accuracy & bias issues== ==Accuracy & bias issues==


WOT Services relies on volunteer contributions to formulate its ratings. There is no standard of technical qualification for volunteers. Amateur volunteers may incorrectly rate sites based upon their misunderstandings of technology or for reasons of ideological bias.{{cn}}
⚫ ] found the poor rating for a used external mailing client 'an error'. The magazine called upon readers who felt compelled, to help to improve the rating. <ref>{{cite web|title=FAQ: Web of Trust|url=http://www.thenation.com/web-trust|date=|accessdate=17 January 2015|publisher=]}}</ref>

⚫ Political magazine ] received a negative rating from WOT Services for their outgoing emails. The Nation inquired with the user responsible for the rating, who admitted that he had erroneously rated the domain. The magazine called upon readers who felt compelled, to help to improve the rating.<ref>{{cite web|title=FAQ: Web of Trust|url=http://www.thenation.com/web-trust|date=|accessdate=17 January 2015|publisher=]}}</ref> On March 31, 2014 a WOT power user (who's ratings carry greater weight than others) had negatively rated the domain, accusing it of distributing ].


In 2011 a lawsuit in ] against WOT and some its forum members, demanding to remove ratings and comments, was ]. In ] some ]s were issued by courts, to delete feedback.<ref>{{cite web|title=WOT Wins Lawsuit In The US|url=http://www.arcticstartup.com/2011/12/13/wot-wins-lawsuit-in-the-us|date=13 December 2011|accessdate=22 December 2011|publisher=]}}</ref> In 2011 a lawsuit in ] against WOT and some its forum members, demanding to remove ratings and comments, was ]. In ] some ]s were issued by courts, to delete feedback.<ref>{{cite web|title=WOT Wins Lawsuit In The US|url=http://www.arcticstartup.com/2011/12/13/wot-wins-lawsuit-in-the-us|date=13 December 2011|accessdate=22 December 2011|publisher=]}}</ref>

Revision as of 22:17, 28 January 2015

For the cryptography term, see Web of trust.
WOT Services, Ltd.
IndustryInternet safety
FoundedJuly 2006
HeadquartersHelsinki, Finland
Websitewww.mywot.com

WOT Services, Ltd is a Finnish company that runs the partly crowdsourced Internet website reputation rating tool Web of Trust (WOT). The installed WOT browser add-on shows its users the reputations of websites, which are calculated through a combination of user ratings and data from other sources. To generate revenue WOT licenses the use of its reputation database to other businesses.

History

WOT was founded in 2006 by Sami Tolvanen and Timo Ala-Kleemola, who wrote the WOT software as post-graduates at the Tampere University of Technology in Finland. They launched the service officially in 2007, with serial entrepreneur and angel investor Esa Suurio as CEO. In November 2009 Suurio moved on to his next endeavor.

In 2009 MySQL founder Michael Widenius invested in WOT and became a member of the board of directors.

The company has partnered with Facebook, hpHosts, LegitScript, Mail.ru, Panda Security, Phishtank, GlobalSign and TRUSTe.

The rating tool

The WOT browser add-on does two things: (1) it sends user ratings to the WOT site, and (2) it displays the computed results via color-coded icons in the user's browser tool-bar and next to external links on the pages of leading search engines, email services and social network sites. The add-on source code is public.

According to the company information their program software is designed to compute the measure of trust the rating users have in websites, enhanced with data from a number of third-party sources. The user rating system claims to be meritocratic; the weight of ratings are algorithmically calculated for each user individually.

Reviews

The New York Times and the Washington Post made mention of WOT and the add-on was mentioned and reviewed by the trade press and download sites. The reviewers opinions vary from good to excellent, though some critical remarks were made.

PC Magazine's Neil Rubenking concluded "Web of Trust's protection is free, and it doesn't impact browsing speed; it's well worth trying out". However, on the minus side he found several clearly adult sites unrated and he wished WOT would also rate sponsored search results, like its main competitors do.

PC World's Preston Gralla concluded: "Try WOT (Web of Trust), an excellent--and free--browser add-on that offers protection", and Rick Broida wrote in an article "I also highly recommend Web of Trust, a free browser plug-in that shows you if Web links are safe--before you click them".

Softpedia reviewer Ionut Ilascu wrote: "The reliability of the service has grown in the past years, despite voices accusing it of being exactly the opposite of what it should be, and proof is the collaboration with Facebook, Opera and Mail.ru Group.", concluding "As a service, WOT (Web of Trust) may be viewed as biased, but the latest developments in balancing the user opinion in order to provide relevant information point to the contrary. The extension is non-obtrusive but still has room for improvements.".

Accuracy & bias issues

WOT Services relies on volunteer contributions to formulate its ratings. There is no standard of technical qualification for volunteers. Amateur volunteers may incorrectly rate sites based upon their misunderstandings of technology or for reasons of ideological bias.

Political magazine The Nation received a negative rating from WOT Services for their outgoing emails. The Nation inquired with the user responsible for the rating, who admitted that he had erroneously rated the domain. The magazine called upon readers who felt compelled, to help to improve the rating. On March 31, 2014 a WOT power user (who's ratings carry greater weight than others) had negatively rated the domain, accusing it of distributing malware.

In 2011 a lawsuit in Florida, USA against WOT and some its forum members, demanding to remove ratings and comments, was dismissed with prejudice. In Germany some preliminary injunctions were issued by courts, to delete feedback.

See also

References

  1. Modine, Austin (17 February 2009). "The Register - MySQL daddy juices Finnish security firm". Retrieved 21 December 2014.
  2. Widenius, Michael (16 February 2009). "Monty says - Life goes on and making the internet more secure with Web of Trust (WOT)". Retrieved 21 December 2014.
  3. "Facebook Security - Keeping You Safe from Scams and Spam". 12 May 2011. Retrieved 31 May 2014.
  4. "Donna's SecurityFlash - Web of Trust (WOT) is now using hpHOSTS database". 6 July 2008. Retrieved 31 May 2014.
  5. "LegitScript Blog - LegitScript, Web of Trust announce partnership". 13 May 2010. Retrieved 31 May 2014.
  6. "Mail.Ru Group Launches New Browser Featuring Web of Trust Safe-Surfing Technology" (Press release). Rocket Science PR. 8 August 2012.
  7. Schaffhauser, Dian (11 August 2009). "The Journal - Panda Security, Against Intuition Offer Free 'Web of Trust' Browser Addon". Retrieved 31 May 2014.
  8. "Friends of PhishTank". Retrieved 31 May 2014.
  9. "GlobalSign - GlobalSign Partners with Web of Trust to Provide Reputation Data in the Website Passport". 15 March 2012. Retrieved 18 December 2014.
  10. Richmond, Riva (19 May 2010). "New York Times - Five Ways to Keep Online Criminals at Bay". Retrieved 21 December 2014.
  11. Krebs, Brian (29 July 2008). "Washington Post - Three Quarters of Malicious Web Sites Are Hacked". Retrieved 21 December 2014.
  12. Bell, Melissa (13 May 2011). "Washington Post - After big news stories, watch out for social media viruses". Retrieved 21 December 2014.
  13. Rubenking, Neil J. (Aug 13, 2009). "PC Magazine - Web of Trust Review and Rating". Retrieved 17 May 2011.
  14. Gralla, Preston (26 April 2009). "PCWorld - Say WOT? Web of Trust Rates Web Site Safety". Retrieved 21 December 2014.
  15. Broida, Rick (4 January 2010). "PCWorld - Make Your New PC Hassle-Free, Part 3: Keep It Secure". Retrieved 21 December 2014.
  16. Ilascu, Ionut (26 September 2013). "Softpedia - Web of Trust Review". Retrieved 21 December 2014.
  17. "FAQ: Web of Trust". The Nation. Retrieved 17 January 2015.
  18. "WOT Wins Lawsuit In The US". ArcticStartup. 13 December 2011. Retrieved 22 December 2011.
Categories: