I have just noted that a site I know very well and visit often has an all red danger warning based on “very few votes”. This has to be a flaming of some kind. How does one address these malicious defamations?
Web Rep is a reputation-based voting system. It asks "Do you like this site, and how much do like it (or not).
So, based on the idea that everyone is entitled to their opinion…you just live with the fact that someone/s does not your site. “Like” is so ambiguous, it can’t be malicious. What is your site? If it offers any kind of content that is going to polarize people, this is always a risk.
That’s what I do not understand. http://www.centerateaglehill.org/ is a non profit cultural arts site that has minimal scripts running, (ticket sales)is family friendly and as benign as any site I have ever been to.
I still have WebRep installed on my Fx, and it shows grey for me on your site, which means no votes or not enough votes to register anything. So it might be a problem with Avast!'s servers.
Can’t say for sure, though, since the WebRep I have installed is the Beta they released before it was ever bundled with Avast!, so it might not even be working correctly for me.
Anyone have a regular-release WebRep they can check this guys site with?
I cant even access the site ???
Managed to get to the site, it seems NortonDNS doesn’t like the site either and was stoping me from accessing it.
Works fine for me with Norton DNS. Reports back as clean.
https://safeweb.norton.com/report/show?url=http://www.centerateaglehill.org/
http://www.siteadvisor.com/sites/http%3A//www.centerateaglehill.org/
http://www.virustotal.com/url-scan/report.html?id=bf64456bcfa9c580e29cb4ecd160fa8a-1316624373
I am beginning to wonder if Avast is going to start taking “pay to play” money. My site has been given a negative rating although there are no downloads, no malicious scripts, no gambling, no selling, no ANYTHING that could in any way be construed as malicious.
They refuse to allow a way for site owners to respond to negative community ratings, or to allow for release of the identity of the perpetrators.
Those damaged by this behavior of Avast need to make your voices heard at Avast.
It apparently isn’t just a couple of sites this is happening to.
Really? :
Come on, now.
[quote author=Dijenga link=topic=85208.msg691254#msg691254 date=1316696609]
Because it is not a security rating, the colored slider has nothing to do with malicious content…ah, wth, I give up, I don’t know why I am defending WepRep anyway, I don’t like it or use it. :
I don’t like it either, however, when someone comes to my site and sees the red bars they assume it is a malicious site.
BTW, Avast has changed the rating on my main site to “Neutral” . . . and while I’m grateful, I would really advise them to fix it or remove the program.
You probably already saw it, since you posted there also, but in case you missed it or for anyone else…
http://forum.avast.com/index.php?topic=85230.msg691333#msg691333
Thanks for drawing this to my attention. I posted concerning a program called Wordfast towards the end of September, which is a program like Trados for translators. These rely on glossaries of translated words that are acceptable to any given customer (regradless of whether correct or not you have to adhere to them in order to get paid!!)
My problem was that the glossaries would not download. After trying various possible remedies, I found that disabling Sandbox allowed Wordfast to download with customer approved translation matches.
However, the translation agency with whom I had started on 1st September parted company with me the following week - because of customer complaints of my non-adherence to their glossary guides - guides that I could not downlaod apparently becuase of Sandbox. >:(
PS - wrong thread? This concerned Sandbox not Web Shield.
I do not have NoScript installed.