Part of the problem is when sites that are known to serve up malware, and have no other legitimate purpose, and WebRep signals that “This site has an overall good rating” [based on a small number of votes], a reasonable user will interpret that this site is trustworthy, and it makes it more likely that an unknown program will be run than if WebRep had not been installed. In this scenario, a reasonable user may be worse off than having no web-based reputation protection, which is certainly not the intent. Reviews such as this, from the respected source, PCMAG, also convey this sense of trustworthiness of sites:
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2381364,00.asp
Another reasonable interpretation is that WebRep does not signal site trustworthiness, or even the likelihood that illegal content or malware is being served up, but rather whether the community of users, approve, disapprove, like or dislike or have any number of other opinions about the website, the business or community the website represents, local brick and mortar stores of the national chain. If so, the ratings attached to sites are not helpful to Avast! user, as sites receive only one global rating, as an up or down vote. It is particularly confusing, because the attempt to simplify rating interpretation (by giving a single global verdict) is based on none and any criteria, at the same time. In other words, the single global verdict cannot be reliably interpreted by the average user since it is not developed on a standard criterion.
If Avast! is confident that the votes are not being maliciously manipulated, which seems at least plausible, then I like BigBear’s suggestion. The easiest way to bring balanace to the force may be to multiply each user’s vote by that user’s “street 'cred” in the Avast! community (which can be calculated in any number of ways). That way malicious manipulation and abject voting are diluted out…
We can probably agree that the average user is more likely to approve of Olive Garden than a website serving them malware.
(please see the URL I listed as part of the original posting for this thread)