Yes, neither is "perfect", but then nothing is 100% right. However, both are in the 90% range. And even if you lower that accuracy, to something like 50%, that's a heck of a lot better than nothing at all.
These are just another layer in your security mechanisms. They are not absolutes, they are guidelines. But as always, the final judgment in protecting against phishing, forged Web pages, downloading malware, and other threats is the technology located between the user's ears. The best anti-virus is common sense . . . it can be updated daily!
And if you disagree with a particular rating, you can always do the detective work yourself.
And as far as "highly subjective, if not corrupt, input from anyone at any time" . . . I don't know about SA, but WOT has a sophisticated algorithm that gives less weight to a new rater.
For example, if you've only rated a few sites, your ratings won't be weighted as heavily in the overall ratings as those of more experienced users.
And another thing that algorithm does is eliminate fraudulent raters. For example, if you consistently rate sites just the opposite of what the more experienced users rate it, the algorithm flags your ratings for the WOT staff to contact you and ask for your comments on those ratings. Mind you, that doesn't necessarily eliminate your ratings, it just flags them for a query.
I've seen malicious site owners rate a site green when everybody else is rating it red, and they get "caught"
Likewise, I've seen an individual rate a site red when everybody else is rating it green. A public query (on the WOT forum) usually reveals that either that rater was a novice, or else the rater delved deeper than most and found something malicious (in which case even the experienced users go back and look at the site again).
As I said, the system is certainly not "perfect", but it's a heck of a lot better than nothing at all. And again, it's not an absolute, but rather a guideline that the user can make a judgment on.
Curious, Spacegold, what method(s) did you use to "check it out"? Not questioning the credibility of it, or otherwise taking an abrasive tone, but am really curious about how you arrived at your conclusion. Your comment that "I promptly uninstalled it as nearly useless" is rather vague. Can you give some specifics for users (myself included) to consider?
