system
9
I agree Eddy it could be used without the Add-On, but it was presented to me as an add-on and how I had planned on using it.
A commonly made mistake (you seem to be making it too),
is that people think the add-on is bad while avast only says it has a bad reputation.
avast doesn't say it is bad/harmful.
If it would be harmful, the file- and/or webshield should give a alert.
I don't see me as making the mistake. My anti-virus "says" it is bad based on reputation, and it would continue to alert me if I left it installed. To me that is my protection program forcing me to use it without the add-on option as Avast says in the Warning that it is "bad".
Whether you label it as a bad reputation or bad harmful wise, you are still prompting me to remove it. When the words "Warning" are used to get your attention, and the only option is to "Remove Bad Add-on" or exit out and wait for the next "Warning" then most people of average ability will take it that it is bad to remain on your system.
The “Reputation” does not specify if it was a bad reputation due to harm, or just un-liked software, and as you pointed out, it can be great software and the majority of people saying they don’t like it, may be those that had a problem (aesthetic or functional) with it, not because it is harmful. Warnings should be based on actual reports of harm, not the popularity. Many users aren’t as savvy as you or I and will be frightened by any “Warning” and “Remove Bad Add-on” prompts.
I hope they consider doing away with they unreliable “reputation” ratings. Give me concrete reports of harm, not opinions of whether it is good or not based on a few arbitrary feelings about the software’s functionality.
It’s sort of like website ratings, just a very few malicious reports from someone that doesn’t like the owner of a website can cause false alerts. The website may be fine, but most people report unfavorable stuff than kudos to a site.
I hope if higher ups read this thread they will give more thought on the “reputation” based detection system they have in place and use actual virus signatures/definitions instead.
Thanks for the help though I appreciate it.