Hi folks,
It is a bit annoying we have now two threads running on what is for some the annoying pocodot, for the other thread see: http://forum.avast.com/index.php?topic=76290.0
Agree with Dieselman here that web rep tools are as good as the users that provide the data, but still WOT’s ratings is valuable if you check out for yourself with other resources. WOT did on occasions detect genuine issues that others do not or rather would not touch, you have to establish with other resources what is valid, genuine info or not - McAfee by acquiring this has been running siteadvisor into the ground kind of, http://www.webutation.net/ is a community web rep tool that misses a lot, this could help: http://toolbar.netcraft.com/site_report?url= , then we have the independant M86security browsing, and this one: http://global.sitesafety.trendmicro.com/ , Norton Safe Web, etc. combine several results to decide what it is.
On the other hand as an example where views may differ - WOT users may look at “available.above.net” differently than for instance major parties of the content industry, so a reputation report can always come with certain bias, downplaying an annoyance because of vested tracking or commercial interests is at the other end of the spectrum, one should decide for oneself after looking at the different sides
what it really comes down to,
polonus