|
|
 | Review | Rating | Date |
|
| "Web of Trust, people-driven security" Someone asked about the difference between WOT and SiteAdvisor: WOT uses a combination of user ratings and data from hundreds of trusted sources. Many Internet users who have used WOT have noticed that the user driven approach often gives more accurate ratings than automated ones like SiteAdvisor, especially for reputation regarding "vendor reliability" and "child safety", where human input is crucial.
by: Deborah
| 5 | 2008-05-30 |
|
|
| "Useless" Just use Cclearner and Zappit ! Those are much more reliable, and you can be sure that your pc is clean after visiting any kind of sites.
by: commercob
| 2 | 2008-05-22 |
|
|
| "SiteAdvisor" Can any body tell me if this is better or worse the McAfee SiteAdvisor?
They sound like they do the same job!
by: mobile-uk
| 3 | 2008-04-24 |
|
|
| "Really helpful" Learned this from my brother. What it does is put a green mark for safe sites, red for risky sites that spread spyware, spam or try to scam. It's really helpful. You can give your own ratings too.
by: Alex
| 5 | 2008-02-23 |
|
|
| "More should use it!!" This could very well be the best piece of software going. If enough people used it to keep web sites honest and reliable. If you get jabbed by an untrustworthy site you have a way of warning others. If more surfers used it, it could clean up some baddies.
by: Jack
| 5 | 2008-02-23 |
|
|
| "Very useful add-on" Warns me of risky sites when I surf and come accross new sites. Provide accurate ratingws because they are based on community not automated testers.
by: DanielCA
| 5 | 2008-02-09 |
|
|
| "Excelent" This is a very helpful function. I don't need to worry about surfing in dangerous sites any more. Great work.
by: Sendo
| 5 | 2008-02-09 |
|
|
