vote
I think to vote you must enter a site with virus or malware then to vote.
Still can improve to make it work in beta versions of browsers like Firefox 5.
This really is another pointless poll.
The webrep currently has no security function, it is reputation based and mentions nothing about viruses/malware. So how could it possibly show an improvement in security.
As and when the input from the avast virus labs is included then and only then would it have any real security benefits.
I also think it is a Bad Idea to be entering sites with viruses/malware as the webrep has zero function in that regard and you are trusting to the web shield or network shield saves your ass, a real bad idea.
+1
You mean WebRep improves Security? Nah, It’s based on reputation of users. Anyone can give higher rating for harmful site too.
I wonder what is your intention for this POLL?
Cheers…
Webrep definitely doesn’t improve for security. It just gives a reputation of that site.
+1
It’s somehow security of course. But it is not security security if you understand what we mean.
if you want browser security try spybot destroyer
SO,how do you know if your site is good or bad if you have not enter it?
Think.
if this is not a useful tool as a safety item informing the User that a particular site is not safe to enter so Why use webrep.???
webrep currently has security function,its a additional security tool!!
useless its dont have opinion.
Eventually, Webrep’s ratings will include data from Avast’s labs about malware and the like, and will become an additional safety factor. Currently it’s only a measure of a site’s popularity and in no way provides any kind of security.
WebRep is “not” security at all. I don’t even use it. It’s based on popularity “not” security.
As far as SpyBot S&D I got rid of that because I finally figured it out…it’s useless. I am keeping MBAM and SAS. 
I vote No.As long as Avast! has powerful network and web shields,I don’t think WebRep is important.
post count and forum visibility/popularity
I didn’t use WebRep, WOT, McAfee SiteAdvisor, TrendProtect, etc. since WebShield already protecting me. I don’t need to know popularity rating of any websites I’m going to enter or not.
This poll is pointless. Ironically, I’m still bothering myself with voting it and replying this topic… 
p.s. I’m one of those who vote for Whatever.
Great, just what is needed, modify the voting categories in mid Poll, invalidating further what is a totally pointless poll.
What if you hosted a website and it shows no reputation at all. So you never enter it again?
Cheers…
Web rep is a controversial service, where it depends on user input. At best it is a guidance where not to go because content might be questionable, worst case scenario it can be used to get users on a wrong footing. But a lot of these services mix web rep and security alerts, so users may get the wrong idea of what it is for. It was started with the now discontinued Scandoo service, a search engine ranking service. Then came SiteAdvisor, now sort of been run into the ground after McAfee took over. Webutation gives Google Safebrowsing results (loads and loads of pages not yet scanned or ranked, just like at NSW), Website antivirus info on status pop-ups, downloads, links, OT results and GRated/Child Safety.
But there are also sites that rank the following: technical info like htp Cookies, P3P or not,
Dynamic Content info - header info, Server details (exploitable), Browserscripts, Java Applets, Siverlight or not, Adobe Flash or not, Youth Content Filtering, Spamcheck, Safe Browsing status, WOT, Alexa rank, Wikipedia links, link analysis,
DrWeb url checker misses a lot because it cannot scan deep enough, and is dependent on what is in the engine database. Bitdefender Traffic Light has an advanced Phishing Filter, a malware filter, search results analyzer and antifraudfilter to be brought in. Better than WOT that has been poisoned with particular user data.
Another mixed real-time pre-scan extension is M86 secure browsing. It is not one of the worst scanners, a pity it is not available for Google Chrome (IE and Fx extensions)
There are discrepancies in the scanning results of the various Web rep extensions/tools.
I’d rather have something like Google Safebrowsing with a good combined badware buster etc. sinkhole implementation. In the situation we have now I have to combine the results of various URL scanners, VT scans, wepawet scans, iFrame scanners, sitecheck sucuri free website scan, SOSWebScan etc. to have a bit of a clue where not to click and still there is a minefield open to us of just hacked reputable sites, zeroday script exploits.
What remains is in-browser protection like NoScript/RequestPolicy in Fx and similar protection for GoogleChrome NotScripts/Better Pop up Blocker, Blocker extensions then you also will steer clear even from future exploits, because they cannot run inside the browser. Of course sandboxing also helps to this effect.
What is web rep? A bit of guidance, at best mixed with some snake oil reliability, for the average user that clicks after all he/she/it can click on, there is not an easy remedy, the problem stays between the link and the chair…
polonus
WebRep is good but more improvement needed
Yes, and they’re planned already.
As you’re a reseller you can read in the ECC. 
Some interesting statements there…
I agree 
Why should avast “make” it work in a beta? The whole point in “beta” is to work out the kinks.
When what really matters is the final product. FF 4.0.1 is just out of the box. As far as entering a site with a virus or malware…why should I infect my pc? The whole point of an anti-virus is to avoid that garbage. That is why I trust the eight resident shields that avast provides.