Best Free Internet Safety Check


In a Hurry?

  Go straight to the Quick Selection Guide for short detailed summaries of each product.
  Go straight to the Quick Decision Guide for what runs with your browser & operating system.
  Go straight to the Supplement for the complete list of products and further analysis.



In the past I've relied on parental filters and anti-virus software. Well, now that I've been forced to use these safety checks, I've find that they are very useful. I sure like checking on a website before I risk browsing it. Even though it doesn't replace any of my existing security measures - except perhaps the parental filter - this additional layer of security is real useful.

Rating and scanning
The two types of safety check for a web address or URL are rating and scanning. Scan the website for threats (right now when I need it) or rate the reputation of the website using other sources of information: what people think of it, whether it has been associated with any dishonest or illegal activity, and what other security databases have on record which can include the results of your past scans.

Safety checks are easy to install and use
These products are easy to install and use because there are few options to configure. Most run in the background while you browse the Web and only pop-up when they identify a problem. The products mainly install as a browser add-on for each supported web browser. Just be warned that browsing can be noticeably slower and will usually crawl on a dial-up connection or if you run several products at the same time. Often there is a single button added to the toolbar (as with WOT) and sometimes an entire new toolbar (as with LinkExtend).

Online safety checks are an alternative
If you don't want to install more software on your computer then you can use an online service. You manually check websites by typing or copying the web address into the online check website. They are less convenient but are an effective option particularly to get a second opinion. I've included the best in this article but the remainder can be found in the full list of products reviewed.

Web browsers have built-in safety checks
Many of you will realize that you are already using an internet safety rating as a feature of your web browser. For example, Microsoft calls it SmartFilter for Internet Explorer, and Firefox has options to block "reported attack sites" and "reported web forgeries".  Apart from Internet Explorer, the main web browsers source their safety data from other vendors: Firefox, Chrome and Safari use data from Google Safe Browsing; and Opera relies on AVG. I tested them in the same way as the other products and services. In terms of detecting bad websites they were in the middle third of the products I reviewed.

Color-coded results
Typically, the products present their results with color-coded symbols as shown in the image from Web of Trust (WOT). The WOT scorecard uses rating symbols that have five levels of color from dark green for trustworthy, yellow for concern, and orange to red for dangerous. Grey is used for unrated sites. Most programs work in a similar way, placing an icon beside web links so that moving the mouse over the icon will display the rating; and clicking on the icon or pop-up displays the full scorecard. Online meta-scanners, which use the results of many different scans, are the main exception.WOT rating symbols Although many use similar colors their rating is usually the fraction of the tests for problems found e.g. 9 of 15, 9/15.

Criteria for this review
I've rated these products by looking at six criteria:

  • Ratings that are reliable with more information close at hand.
  • Scanning that doesn't slow me down too much.
  • Warning about and blocking of risky sites.
  • Searching options including icons that link to the full rating.
  • Compatibility and integration with the web browsers and operating systems.
  • Detecting web pages and sites that have active or reported threats


Installed software

WOT (Web of Trust)    Rating 8 of 10  Gizmo's Top Pick      installed rater 

Web of Trust warning pop-up

WOT (Web of Trust) from WOT Services is the Editor's Choice because it leads in many areas: compatibility and integration with seamless operation; flexible options; searching; warning and blocking; and user input. It only loses in areas that it doesn't compete in: meta-rating (combining the results from several raters as in Link Extend) and scanning.

WOT is the best implemented and the best documented rater - you can even view the source code. It is also the most heavily criticized. For these reasons I'm using it to discuss many of the features that can be found in raters.

Rating scorecards
The WOT scorecard shows ratings for four WOT Rating Categories. Don't confuse these with the sixteen Community (user) comment categories. The comment categories do not affect the ratings. It's a shame that many critics of WOT do not realize this.

  1. Trustworthiness - WOT calculates this with information from trusted sources and user feedback.
  2. Vendor Reliability - Does this website provide a positive shopping experience? What's the product or service like? Is the information factual or fabricated?
  3. Privacy - Can the website be trusted with your personally identifiable information? Does it produce spam or phishing schemes?
  4. Child Safety - Is the website safe for young children? Does it have material (e.g. pornography), games (e.g. age-restricted games), multimedia (e.g. music with explicit lyrics), or forums (e.g. political or religious viewpoints) that is better reserved for adults?

Warning and blocking
WOT is very good at warning and blocking. You decide how to handle each of the four rating categories. Specify the level of danger you are prepared to accept - red, orange, or yellow - and then whether you want a warning or a block. You can also include unrated sites if you don't want them to slip through by default. WOT's block screen will redirect you to WOT or open in a new tab, but will not take you to a risky site unless you specifically chose to ignore the warning. It's up to you which step you take next:

  • Ignore the WOT warning and go to the website;
  • Rate the site if you disagree with WOT's rating;
  • View rating details and comments about the website;
  • Use your browser to take some other action: surf to a different website, close the tabbed window, go back, use a bookmark, etc.

Like most raters, WOT has a safe search option. It's provided by Surf Canyon based on Bing. WOT also has more search options to choose from. You can select the rating you want to see in the search results: the default "optimized" rating, the lowest rating, or the trustworthiness rating by itself. WOT ratings also appear for more search engines and other services than any other product:

  • English search engines: AOL, Ask, Bing, Google, Yahoo!
  • Non-english search engines: China - Baidu; Czech - Seznam, WebHledani; Korea -  Naver;  Russia - Rambler, Yandex;
  • Metasearch engines and reference: Dogpile, Inquick, Search, Wikipedia
  • Social networks and messaging: Facebook, Gmail, Mail Ru, Twitter, Windows Live Hotmail, Yahoo! Mail

User ratings
WOT has a comprehensive set of sixteen categories for user ratings and comments. When I collated these categories for all the programs I reviewed, I found that WOT covers all of them except three. As is expected, the majority of ten cater for negative ratings, there are five for positive ratings, and one for neutral comments.

McAfee SiteAdvisor   Rating 6 of 10   installed rater

McAfee SiteAdvisorI found McAfee Site Advisor to be solid but unexceptional. It falls well short of WOT in its features, ratings, and safety. It just didn't warn me about enough bad websites which is surprising because the online check at McAfee Threat Intelligence does. Despite its average performance in detecting threats, it did find problems such as browser exploits that WOT was not aware of. I also like using the website report which includes a list of downloads and a diagram of linked sites.

Like WOT, it supports all the main english-speaking search several foreign-language portals. But compared with WOT, it runs on fewer systems and web browsers. It was slower. In most areas it has has fewer features. Some things I wanted (e.g. email and IM link scanning) require an upgrade to the paid version, SiteAdvisor Live. User ratings and comments are less useful and appear to be totally ignored for rating purposes anyway.  I couldn't even challenge errors of fact that other users had made. A small irritation in search results is that it's icon was obscured by the Web Security Guard icon and itself obscured other icons (M86 Secure Browsing, Norton Safe Web).

If you already use McAfee products then there will be some synergy such as using your existing registration. SiteAdvisor is also one part of McAfee Web Security which also provides the SECURE trustmark and SECURE shopping for websites. I think that it suffers from being the least important part which is a problem common to several of these products that have commercial products for sale.

AVG LinkScanner    Rating 5 of 10      installed scanner

I have ranked AVG LinkScanner third because a scanner is useful if you don't have anti-virus on your computer that checks website links. Even though it was not very good at detecting threats it did detect and disarm threats from websites that the raters said were OK. This is the advantage of scanners.

LinkScanner is a well organized package. It looks like other AVG programs, installs in a similar manner, and is presented in the same modular manner. That's because it is assembled from some modules of AVG Anti-Virus Free Edition: LinkScanner, Security Toolbar, and Update Manager. So if you're using AVG Anti-Virus then you do not need need AVG LinkScanner. Two further modules, parental controls and online backup, are indicated as installable but are not free.

The LinkScanner module has two protective components:

  1. Surf-Shield checks websites for threats and runs independently of the browser. Scanners always slow you down but if they are based on anti-virus technology they will usually work with any browser. That's why Surf-Shield will still be working even if you switch off the browser add-ons. If you have a compatibility problem with other anti-virus software then turning off Surf-Shield will allow you to confirm this without uninstalling the whole program.
  2. Search-Shield gets ratings for any website address and inserts the safety ratings into your search results. It also runs as, or is linked with, the add-on called Safe Search. Search-Shield works with Firefox, Internet Explorer, Chrome and Safari but not Opera.

The AVG Security Toolbar is an add-on so it can be disabled but you will lose easy access to the LinkScanner options, AVG Secure Search, and the Page Status for the current web page. Incidentally, you can also check any website address by clicking on the AVG LinkScanner component within AVG LinkScanner in the system tray.

LinkExtend    Rating 4 of 10    installed meta-rater

Linkular's LinkExtendLinkExtend is the best installed meta-rater and it has an excellent reputation with users. But it really only works well with Firefox. The versions for Internet Explorer and Chrome force you to check the ratings manually by going to the sources. In addition, the Chrome version won't give ratings on search lists.

LinkExtend uses several other products for its safety rating: WOT, SiteAdvisor, Safe Web, Google Safe Browsing, Browser Defender, and Web Security Guard.. Just be careful, WOT can identify a bad site with active threats but LinkExtend's weighting algorithm does not always give it a bad safety rating. It also provides ratings for child safety and company ethics, and a lot of other information about a website's popularity, web traffic, age, my last visit, etc. As a result it has the busiest and largest toolbar in your browser. LinkExtend also has extensive options: the services to be used for each rating; what appears on the toolbar; what appears on the context menu; etc.

If you like quick access to a lot of information then LinkExtend is attractive. Just remember that it doesn't put up warning or block screens in Firefox and Internet Explorer. It does put up a warning in Chrome but well after the page has already loaded. It only provides ratings for result lists from two search engines: Google and Yahoo!. It is slow and seems to be slowest in Chrome. You will be able to see the website rating change as it checks with each source. As a meta-rater, it is only as good as the best rating it is given. More often than not, you won't know which one you should trust. You will probably need more information to compare the differing ratings so you will discover that you will have to go to each rater's website. That takes too long. For me, that has meant LinkExtend is only a distraction where I find myself saying "Oh, that is interesting!" or "I wonder why ...?".  I decided to disable it temporarily only to discover that LinkExtend keeps re-enabling itself.

TrendProtect    Rating 4 of 10     installed rater

I have included Trend Micro's  TrendProtect for one important reason. Those using Internet Explorer 6 or 7 need all the help they can get to keep safe. If Trend Micro developed it to work with all the browsers I would rate it much more highly. It correctly rates many bad websites but leaves too many good sites unrated. It also needs to work with more than just Google and Yahoo! searches. It was unusual because it uses content categories in a similar way to parental filters but without doing any blocking. So it not only warns about websites with poor ratings but also warns you if your safe website is in one of the categories you selected.


Online services

These online safety checks are less convenient but very useful.

VirusTotal    Rating 4 of 10     online meta-rater/scanner + add-ons

VirusTotal has browser add-ons VTZilla and VTChromizer for Firefox and Chrome respectively. They put a shortcut to VirusTotal on the context menu for any web link so you can start the rating and scanning from there rather than having to go to the VirusTotal website.

VirusTotal checks websites against 13 rating services and blacklists. It also scans with 42 anti-virus engines. This battery of tests is its strength. Its weakness is that the reporting takes too long (minutes instead of seconds) when compared with the installed raters and scanners. But being web-based it will run with every browser. You can rate websites with comments in any of one positive category (benign) and five negative categories (browser exploit, malicious. malware download, phishing site, spam link). If you sign-up your ratings carry more weight than anonymous ratings. As is usual with many of these scanners, you are given the anti-virus scanner name, version, last update date and, most importantly, the result of the scan.

Trend Micro Site Safety    Rating 4 of 10     online rater

Trend Micro Site Safety gives a simple rating with the category of threat. It has equivalent accuracy to the other Trend Micro products so it is very good. If it had an installable version that would be recommended as a top product. I know that there is TrendProtect but it only works with Internet Explorer. While Web Protection Add-on works for all browsers it is only trial software.

URLVoid    Rating 4 of 10     online rater

URLVoid from NoVirusThanks Company is very similar to VirusTotal. It uses 17 rating services and blacklists but only 6 anti-virus scanners which makes it less effective. The rating and scanning are initiated separately so it is also less convenient. It is easier to see if there is a problem because  results are color-coded: green for Clean, yellow for Suspicious, red for Dangerous/Infected, and gray for Unrated. URLVoid's website is a beta version but I had no problems and anyway it is less risky for my computer configuration than the installable betas like TrafficLight and Browser Guard.

Many online checkers have a lot of other tools. URLVoid has more than most: scan a file, scan an IP address, analyze a website for other issues, download a website's code without browsing it, unshorten URLs, etc.

McAfee Threat Intelligence    Rating 4 of 10     online rater

You can search the McAfee's Threat Intelligence threat library for a URL or use one of the other categories including IP address, DNS server, malware name or the name of the vulnerability. In my tests it was nearly twice as effective as McAfee Site Advisor in identifying websites with active threats.


Related Products and Links

General Security Advice

Resident Security Products

On-Demand Antimalware Products

Safe Practices


Quick Decision Guide

These three questions will help you to get a shortlist of the products that might best suit you.
Note that online services are in italic.

What operating system do you use?

Linux Other
See the next question WOT (for Firefox or Internet Explorer);
TrendProtect (for Internet Explorer);
online services

McAfee SiteAdvisor (for Firefox);
online services

online services

WOT or other bookmarklet;
online services

What Windows web browser do you use?

Mozilla Firefox Internet Explorer Google Chrome Apple Safari Opera

 WOT 64 Bit version available;
McAfee SiteAdvisor
(64 Bit version available Windows 7);
AVG LinkScanner64 Bit version available
VirusTotal VTZilla;
online services

McAfee SiteAdvisor
(64 Bit version available Windows 7);
AVG LinkScanner64 Bit version available
online services

WOT 64 Bit version available;
McAfee SiteAdvisor
(64 Bit version available Windows 7);
AVG LinkScanner64 Bit version available
VirusTotal VTChrominizer;
online services

WOT 64 Bit version available;
AVG LinkScanner64 Bit version available
online services
WOT 64 Bit version available;
AVG LinkScanner64 Bit version available
online services

How well do you want to be warned about web sites with active threats?


Above Average


Below Average


 Trend Micro Site Safety;
McAfee Threat Intelligence;

Comodo Site Inspector;
AVG LinkScanner;
McAfee SiteAdvisor;

Malware Blacklist; MalcOde;
Browser Defender;
Norton Safe Web;
AVG Threat Labs;
Web Security Guard

Unmask Parasites;
M86 Secure Browsing;
Online Link Scan;
BitDefender Anti-Phishing;


 Mozilla Firefox
Google Chrome

Apple Safari

Internet Explorer



Quick Selection Guide

WOT (Web of Trust)

Gizmo's Freeware award as the best product in its class!

Combines a web service with a stand-alone program
fast; highly compatible but works best in Firefox; works with the most search engines and even Google image search; 17 categories of user comment; excellent warning and blocking; child safety rating; excellent documentation
less functionality in browsers other than Firefox; slow on image search results
0.4 to 1.2 MB
32 and 64 bit versions available
Open source freeware
There is no portable version of this product available.
Downloads are specific to the following browsers: Firefox 3.0+ File Size 0.7 MB Installation Requirements Windows 2000, XP, Vista, 7 64 Bit version available; Mac OS X; Linux Internet Explorer 6.0+: File Size 1.2 MB Installation Requirements Windows 2000 (limited) Windows XP, Vista, 7 64 Bit version available Chrome 4+: File Size ?? MB Installation Requirements Windows XP, Vista, 7 64 Bit version available; Mac OS X; Linux Safari 5+ File Size 1.1 MB Installation Requirements Windows XP, Vista, 7 64 Bit version available; Mac OS X; Linux Opera 11+ File Size 0.4 MB Installation Requirements Windows XP, Vista, 7 64 Bit version available; Mac OS X; Linux A bookmarklet is available for any other browser: Further Resources: About, FAQs, Tutorials, Support, Forums, Wiki, Statistics, Source code, For site owners 
Windows 2000, XP, Vista, 7; Mac OS X; Linux

McAfee SiteAdvisor

Combines a web service with a stand-alone program
works with many search engines; good site report; generally fast; McAfee crawl the web scanning sites
no blocking; limited user ratings
6.7 MB
32 bit but 64 bit compatible
Feature limited freeware
There is no portable version of this product available.
The main download link is for Windows. Other download versions are: Apple OS X download Resources: About, Features, Support, For site owners
Windows XP, Vista, 7 - Firefox 3.0+, Internet Explorer 6.x-8.x, Chrome 5+; Mac OS X - Firefox 3.0+

AVG LinkScanner

Combines a web service with a stand-alone program
for Firefox, Internet Explorer, Chrome and Opera browsers; cut-down version of AVG Anti-Virus; scanning websites works with all browsers even if there is no add-on
scanning searches don't work with Opera
5.2 MB (111 MB install)
32 bit but 64 bit compatible
Free for private use only
There is no portable version of this product available.
Resources: About, FAQs, Forums, Manual
Windows XP, Vista, 7; Mac OS X


Combines a web service with a stand-alone program
combines other free rating sources; provides a lot more information; works with Google and Yahoo! search
Firefox and Chrome only for automated rating, Internet Explorer requires visits to each website; only two search engines; no warning or block screens; no link to detailed information so you will have to go to each rating source
1-1.6 MB (15 MB install)
32 bit only
Unrestricted freeware
There is no portable version of this product available.
Downloads are browser specific: Firefox and Internet Explorer Chrome Resources: About, Support
Windows XP, Vista, 7


Combines a web service with a stand-alone program
for Internet Explorer; good detection rates
only Internet Explorer 6.x or 7.x
2.5 MB
Free for private use only
There is no portable version of this product available.
Windows 2000 SP4, XP, Vista, 7

Trend Micro Site Safety

Is a web service or web application
works with any browser; good threat detection; quick response; also categorizes sites
online service (but TrendProtect for IE is an option)
Unrestricted freeware
Windows; Mac OS X; Linux


Is a web service or web application
online service works with any browser; high accuracy; rates and scans in one check; 42 scanners; 13 raters; installable versions for Firefox and Chrome
slow reporting for scans; browser add-ons do very little
Browser add-ons (both unrestricted freeware File Size 16 KB Installation Requirements Windows XP, Vista, 7): VTZilla for Firefox: VTChromizer for Chrome Resources: About, FAQ, Statistics
Windows; Mac OS X; Linux


Is a web service or web application
works with any browser; 17 raters; 5 scanners; other tools e.g. for IP addresses
online service; separate checks for rating and scanning
Windows; Mac OS X; Linux

McAfee Threat Intelligence

Is a web service or web application
effective rater; search database for IP address, DNS server, malware name, vulnerability name, etc
online service
Windows; Mac OS X; Linux

NetCraft Toolbar

Runs as a stand-alone program on a user's computer
Performs worse than Firefox and Internet Explorer default settings; Blocking did not work while testing this product.
2 MB
Unrestricted freeware
There is no portable version of this product available.
Do not use this product
Windows 2000, XP; Mac OS X; Linux

This software review is copy-edited by Glyn Burgess. Please help edit and improve this article by clicking here.


Back to the top of the article.


Please rate this article: 

Your rating: None
Average: 4.3 (24 votes)


Perhaps" Dr Web Anti-Virus Link Checker" could be reviewed by Gizmos site and included in this lot ?

It is sometimes difficult not to duplicate too much content around the site and this product is already included in these two articles. MC - Site Manager.

VTzilla is a great idea but for Google search it sucks because Google nests the linked URL in itself (for tracking). WOT is worse as it only checks Google itself when its a nested link.

Just did a quick check - Yahoo also does nested links that are even worse. Bing doesn't surprisingly. But I don't find Bing as useful a search tool.

(VTzilla also installs a toolbar for pasting links in but this is fiddlier - you have to select the text below the link in Google & Yahoo)

However, if you use StartPage search, this uses Google search without the tracking and thus the links are direct and VTzilla right-click is useful. WOT works fine there too.

The combo seems good - LinkExtend for the overview, WOT for searches and VTzilla for a detailed review of links. (in Win Firefox)

I use an FF add-on ( to fix the Google redirect issue. As well as bypassing Google search tracking it also makes searches noticeably faster.

I've been trying out Linkextend this evening, it seems quite useful but it's returning "Unknown" for a lot of stuff. The transparent results pop-up is a little difficult to use as well.

Thanks for the tip. It looks to be much updated. I would note this does not remove Google search tracking but it does remove click-tracking, a hunk of it. Where StartPage is more anonymous, sometimes you need the more advanced features or search tools of Google so this will help. It does indeed seem to make searches faster too. And no restart required. Thanks!

And of course, this makes VTzilla and WOT right-clicks work easily.

On LinkExtend, I've turned a lot of it off. I mainly use the toolbar Safety check as it looks at multiple services. However, some like Norton are blocking it now. So the "second opinion" advantages are slowly eroding. But I've kept it rather than having multiple site safety services running. And I've added VTzilla as a way to check the degree of hazard of an unfamiliar site or download or one WOT flags.

VTzilla will also check a download link for Viruses, which is a very handy pre-check. I have good AV thats saved me a couple of times but it's better to not start a toxic download in the first place.

I've been using LinkExtend for some time because it offers the reports from multiple sites including WOT and SiteAdvisor - other products I've used in the past. I found SiteAdvisor better before it was bought by Mcafee. I expect they've reserved some benefit for the paid version. Mcafee also has bad habits with not uninstalling cleanly.

However, LinkExtend has not been updated in some time. It stopped working with Google search awhile back. This has lead to my visit here. I usually recommend WOT for newbies because LinkExtend does require more attention.

Thanks for the mention of VTzilla. I also see BitDefenders Traffic Light is now out of beta. Anyone have experience with it?

On TrafficLight, I see Mozilla Add-on reviews are mixed and it doesn't get along with some common security and download plugins.

I think I'll keep LinkExtend for now and add WOT for searches and VTzilla for checking.


I quite like SafePreview ( as a Firefox add-on for an overview of URLs from a selection of scanners.

It's not been updated since last Summer and elements of it don't work perfectly but for a quick check I find it quite useful.

The trick with these tools is that if they're not updating and don't show in current browsers properly, they won't help you avoid unexpected problem sites or sites you know that become insecure or infected.

The embedded scripts on some sites are all you need to be infected. Just clicking the link from a search. Browsers themselves can help a bit but I see problem sites in Google results all the time.

VTzilla is useful for a quick check of a suspicious site or another way of reviewing the hazards of something reported in WOT. (a hazard in VT is much worse than some hazards in WOT) But it doesn't help if the site is not obviously troublesome. It sounds like SafePreview is similar. That's why I'd also suggest something like WOT. Some sites work hard to look normal and safe while carrying a payload.

SafePreview just returns results from WoT, DrWeb, Trustwave, Google Advisory, and McAfee. Supposedly Norton too but that's never worked for me. The link preview is quite handy sometimes.

For the embedded scripts worry it has to be Noscript, the default-deny policy is a whole new level of security after you've had WoT etc check links for you. Request Policy is also v good if you have the patience to deal with a lot of page elements being blocked.

Ah sorry - I first thought Safe Preview was one of the ones panned on the Supplement page here. But it's something new. And it is indeed a good viable replacement for LinkExtend. Thank you!

Sorry to waste your time trying LinkExtend.

For myself, I'll use WOT as an up-front search warning with Safe Preview as a supplement or "second opinion" for suspicious sites or for cross-checking WOT opinions.

VTzilla as a third tier for checking sites and downloads for viruses. (before my AV)

Norton isn't working in any of these group tools. They're blocking them with a captcha so you have to use their tools or site to get results. It's not a defect of Safe Preview but Norton being stingy.

And yes, NoScript and Adblock are great. I've tried some other more aggressive tools and they broke too much functionality. It is annoying how much business some sites are doing in tracking and selling user information. It is the essential function of some sites like Facebook. Will check out RequestPolicy.

As I have my own web site, I can appreciate knowing what people click on, what pages they view, and how long they stick around. But some sites seem to have forgotten we didn't all sign up to be Neilsen Ratings subjects and marketing guinea pigs.

An initial look at RequestPolicy suggests it's missing a lot of stuff on it's white list, like the interlinking of Wordpress services. A number of web sites don't even get their styles loaded. It reminds me of the early days of software firewalls when you had to OK everything the first time. But it's easier to work with than some of the other tools I've tried so I'll give it a longer test.

Thanks again for the suggestions.

I didn't think it a waste of time at all trying out LinkExtend. I will in fact keep it for a while and see if it still seems useful after disabling the services that don't appear to work. I guess some of the services have changed urls as they do work with other similar add-ons ... I suppose it's just that LinkExtend hasn't been updated in so long. Aside from this it does seem to have some useful features.

I didn't realise that the Google search add-on I mentioned doesn't prevent tracking, the description on the download page seems to suggest that it does but I'm not knowledgeable enough about the processes involved to judge.

Fair point about Request Policy, it does break a lot of sites initially and it takes some time to get used to it and get a whitelist established.

Lots of bad links in the Supplement to this article.

I will soon be updating this article and correcting them.