Siteadvisor vs. WOT

Posts: 6987
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 11:43 am

re:Siteadvisor vs. WOT

Post by Sami » Sat Sep 08, 2007 7:58 pm

I'm sure a Finnish translation can be arranged. ;)

Posts: 101
Joined: Sat Jun 23, 2007 6:29 pm

Siteadvisor seems too complicated a bit and boring.

Post by anandnav » Fri Dec 28, 2007 1:32 pm

I tried Siteadvisor and it was too complicated and boring and also its system is outdated I think which shows all wrong reputation so just after sometime I tried and stopped using it.

About their Rating and Comment system well its useless somehow as few people say something else with their rating and it seems confusing.

Therefore final verdict is that WOT is the best web rating system of all.

Best regards,
Anand N.

Esa S.
Posts: 135
Joined: Wed Aug 15, 2007 12:49 pm

Clif Notes dumps SiteAdvisor in favor of WOT

Post by Esa S. » Sun Dec 30, 2007 9:34 pm

I just happened to come across the well known blog of Clif Notes who writes freeware reviews. Clif has used SiteAdvisor and WOT side by side and has decided to dump SiteAdvisor in favor of WOT. Read more at

Posts: 4906
Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2008 1:46 pm

Siteadvisor vs wot

Post by phantazm » Thu Jan 03, 2008 1:46 pm

"First of all, siteadvisor cant work with wot as well unless u get wot, get site advisor, uninstall wot, and install wot again, which already shows a major flaw. =/."

Hm, I have had no problems installing either. But I've also read somewhere in FireFox that it may lead to trouble if too many add ons are installed. Furthermore it could also be windows; a system not known for its excellency...

"Wot highlights the safe and unsafe results in green yellow and red depending on how safe"

SA also highligths in Green, Yellow or Red. And if you want more, there's usually several reviews to read...

"It only shows u details in google search results, and not many even at that."

It also works with Yahoo and MSN Search...

PS: I'm not trying to defend McAfee here; I've used AVG for years (and recently added Avast)

Posts: 98
Joined: Fri Apr 02, 2010 4:01 pm

I have Site Advisor & I have

Post by Daveto17 » Fri Apr 02, 2010 4:01 pm

I have Site Advisor & I have installed WOT as an add-on in Firefox. They seem to be working perfectly fine side by side at the moment. I have noticed that SA flags some sites as green that WOT has warnings about though. Both SA & WOT seem to work fine together for me.

Posts: 135
Joined: Sat Dec 26, 2009 11:49 am

Site Advisor is Run by Professionals

Post by chazsm » Fri Apr 02, 2010 4:08 pm

WOT is just amateurs. Who would you trust more?

Posts: 98
Joined: Fri Apr 02, 2010 4:01 pm

Second opinion

Post by Daveto17 » Fri Apr 02, 2010 4:15 pm

I'll have to wait & see. It doesn't hurt to have a second opinion!

Posts: 336
Joined: Tue Mar 30, 2010 4:41 pm

Mywot of course.

Post by QuickMan » Fri Apr 02, 2010 6:57 pm

I recommend Mywot, Because the Siteadvisor is outdated and I didn't see it updated.
And the Mywot updates all the rank of websites everyday, Plus when a user tells a really full description of the site if it's bad good or risky, Then Mywot will take a look immediately and then they will say it's has a bad reputations or other attributes.
So I prefer Mywot.



Post by Guest » Fri Apr 02, 2010 7:13 pm

The same could be said about Site Advisor.They also have reviewers like WOT.The main difference that I see is Site Advisors ratings are often way out of date.If your site is misrated it takes a long time for Site Advisor to sort out a mistake.At WOT you can post a request to be re-rated straight away and it is usually dealt with in a fair manner.No website rating tool is perfect.Thats why I use LinkExtend to help with my ratings for WOT.It gives a lot of information.

Posts: 135
Joined: Sat Dec 26, 2009 11:49 am


Post by chazsm » Fri Apr 02, 2010 7:55 pm

The reviewers tend to have to have proven themselves at least somewhat educated in web safety.

Another problem of WOT is it tends to only be people who regularly visit a website who will give it ratings. Thus they're more likely to give it a higher rating than a neutral reviewer would, thus most sites seem to be on "excellent" despite a lot of them being more suited to "unsatisfactory".

Another downside is that a user's reliability is determined by such things as to what extent your ratings are agreed upon by other users. If a website gets an unfair rating of green, then more users are likely to rate it the same to boost their reliability without viewing the site as objectively as they should.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: grandleisure and 3 guests