WebRep Questions and Concerns

Avast Free Antivirus / Premium Security
1

After reading through some posts I have a similar issue like others.

I have a private site I use in designing layouts for gaming sites on pre-made hosts. My site has little to nothing public on it. No one uses it except me and maybe 3 or 4 others that also do designs. There are no images (besides a basic layout being worked on), no downloading, no postings of any kind that is public, there isn’t even any advertisements on it. There is absolutely nothing on there to downgraded the site on.

Is there any place to actually see more detailed info behind said ratings. I mean it would be nice to be able to see logs of it. Like:

Sept 21, 2011 03:45:32 PM - Rated: Orange
Content: Social/Gaming, Weapons/Violence
Sept 20, 2011 07:22:28 PM - Rated: Green
Content: Social/Gaming
Sept 20, 2011 02:34:13 PM - Rated: Green
Content: Gambling, Social/Gaming

This would allow for people to have a better understanding of why the site might be getting downgraded or upgraded since it seems to be based on anonymous opinions. So if there was a bulk period of people downgrading and then nothing for a long while one can assume that 1. rogue ad might have been causing issues, 2. someone trying to mess up the score for the site, or 3. There was some issue on the site and has since been fixed or corrected.

It would also be nice to have more specific things to be voting on instead of “did you like the site?” Like if you choose shopping you get things based on shopping like privacy, reliability, product quality, etc. If it’s social/gaming age, content, use of site, etc. This would make the feature more clear what it is and make it more of a tool for site owners and other users. With as big as WoT is it would be nice to have a more detailed second set of opinions for sites.

Another thing would be nice is to have an easier way for site (domain) owners to rebut the rating if they feel it is incorrect or malicious. Like in my case there is no reason for it to be rated at all since there is nothing for anyone outside of myself, and the 3 or 4 people I work with to see.

Do domains get a "recovery" over time when not downgrade for a period of time? Like say if the system in based on points. Red being -2 points, yellow 0 and the dark green +2. Say you manage to piss off some punk in a forum, he and 4 of his friends votes red on your site you have -10 points. But they loose interest as they usually do and for each month you aren't downgrade you recover .5 points so you can recover from the jerk and his friends in about 20 months.
Another concern, I currently have a domain set to my testing site, and not using the default sub-domain. I remove the domain and the sub-domain turns back to the grayed out rating (ie no rating at all). So is the rating attached to the domain? If it is then what if I buy an expired domain that the previous owner received a crappy rating, does my site now default to that bad rating? Or if I move my domain to another site all together? Can I get it reset?
2

At the present time WebRep is more or less a popularity vote. In the future avast will integrate into more of a security platform. Hope that helps. :slight_smile:

3

Thanks for the reply, as I am aware you are probably getting annoyed with posts that are of this nature. However, your reply did not answer any of my issues concerned, and thus makes me wonder if you even read any of what my post. I am aware with CS, sometimes after you get 10s or 20s of the issue tend to skim the post and not really read it. Then answer based more on the title than the post content. So I can completely understand the generic replay I have seen posted to many of the other posts of this kind. However, I knew that this was not a security feature and even stated that it was based on “anonymous opinions” and thus none of my concerns in my posting were addressed.

I asked if:

  • There was a place to get details info behind the said rating. Some kind of logs. If not it would be nice to have.
  • I suggested maybe making the vote a bit more details instead of a like/dislike feature as that would make it more useful for users and site owners.
  • Requested an easier way for site owners to rebut ratings. Even if it’s a form they have to fill out where they can give all their reasons and evidence to Avast to look into it, and have to wait X amount of days for a reply.
  • I asked if there was a time decay on ratings over a period of time.
  • I asked if the rating is attached to the domain itself or the actual site, as it doesn’t appear to be attached to the site. And since it appears to be attached to the domain what happens if I buy a domain with a crappy rating? Or if I change the domain to an entirely different site? There seems to be concerned about people screwing stats, but with this I could put a domain on a really good site that gets a lot of green ratings and either move it to a site that doesn’t.
  • I also asked how I would go about getting the rating reset at this time if by chance I do get a domain for a client of mine that comes with the baggage of a bad rating.
4

Have my doubts about access to logs, ever. That would defeat the anonymity idea quite a bit. Now, a rebuttal forum would be nice…but how do you rebut that someone does not “Like” your website? Opinion vs. opinion is what it would be, making it pointless, unless you where questioning the content type tags. I don’t know if they (avast!) would be willing to disclose time decay either, as any info they give out about how WebRep calculates input can be used to subvert it.

About the domain question, I have not seen anyone ask that, and would also be interested to see the answer.

As to getting the site rating reset, I’m not sure how easy that would be, but if no one from Avast! responds to you here, you can contact them more directly through this form>>http://www.avast.com/contact-form.php?loadStyles

You have hit well on the flaws of WebRep, including the lack of detail. I have no love of this toy, and the biggest flaw is the people using it never really stop to see what it is and does, they assume Avast! is telling them the site is bad (infected) when they see red. Hope you get some answers.

5

Thanks for the reply, Gargamel. I had read several of your other replies while looking for answers. I agree they will probably not allow access to logs like that, but anonymity is a double-edged sword, and should be some more details about what people are voting why. When they are putting out a tool like this that could possible cause damage to a site (business), and the income they could be looking at some backlash.

Now, a rebuttal forum would be nice....but how do you rebut that someone does not "Like" your website?

This would be more for edge cases. Like if the rating is tied to a domain. I buy a domain for a client of mine that sales something, and not realize this domain has a crappy rating from Avast. Now some of my client’s clients refuse to go to the site because they see red and think my client’s site is dangerous when that rating is actually from another site that had the domain, which expired. That will lead to loss profit and I might also loose a client. Granted that is possibly an extreme, but not 100% unlikely and I am sure several of you have had that client at least once.

I want a quick way to toss a domain through to them with information stating I just bought it and have all the old ratings removed from the previous owner so I can make sure that doesn’t effect my clients in anyway.

You have hit well on the flaws of WebRep, including the lack of detail. I have no love of this toy, and the biggest flaw is the people using it never really stop to see what it is and does, they assume Avast! is telling them the site is bad (infected) when they see red. Hope you get some answers.

You are so correct about users not understanding what it is. Granted, I understand a lot of people don’t take the time to fully learn or understand what they are downloading to their computers or how it’s suppose to work. A majority of the time they assume. They see AntiVirus Product + Voting = Site Security Rating. Where with Google+ it’s Social Network + Voting = Opinion Rating. I’ll join your club in saying I don’t care much for this toy either.

I’ll wait a few to see if anything about the domain is posted. If not I’ll contact them and post back what I find out in case someone else has a similar issue.

6

I don’t feel a rebuttal will be an improvement as was stated opinion vs. opinion. I personally think it would be a better idea to wait for avast to further develop WebRep into a more security based item. As it is now I don’t even have WebRep installed as security wise it’s useless. May I suggest that patience is best while WebRep is strengthened. I, like others, prefer to rely on the resident shields for security. :slight_smile:

7

@Paranoid; This has little do do with WebRep as a security feature to a user locally. So having it installed (or not) and depending on Avast!'s shields for protection is not the issue.

This is about people trying to generate revenue from their websites, and the potential harm an unregulated user-based site rating system can have on them. And while I agree that WebRep is still in its “infancy”, that does little to assuage those who are harmed by its ratings while it is still maturing.

8

@Gargamel360 For those who want to defend their internet reputation I suggest,

http://www.reputation.com/

That is a fundamental flaw with WebRep it is based on a users opinion not on the worthiness of any given website. Therefore provides no security for the user or the website operator.

Quite similar if I enter a particular business and I don’t like it I am free to speak out as long as it is not defaming. That is why I provided the above link. :slight_smile:

9

@Para-Noid:
I am really getting the feeling you are not understanding what the major issue is with.

I don't feel a rebuttal will be an improvement as was stated opinion vs. opinion.

It’s not an opinion when it’s a malicious attack, from a competitors, to down rate you. It’s not an opinion if it’s the rating for another site. It’s not an opinion when it’s some little kid going click happy down rating all sites he/she comes to.

I shouldn’t even have to rebuttal a rating for freshly purchased domain. I shouldn’t I have to go through all that in the first place when I buy a domain from a host and get stuck with the previous owner’s rating. That’s a major issue that needs to be addressed, and why I had asked about it. It wouldn’t be opinion vs. opinion. It would be an overlooked flaw by Avast vs a reputation of a business. This can damage a company right out of the starting gate. Even more so when a domain is a very important aspect to a company’s website. If a good one comes up you take it and shouldn’t have to worry if Joe Bumpkin who had it previously had a bad rating on his site. And don’t say a domain isn’t that important. People pay lots of many for good domains as well as go to court many times over because of them. Almost 25% of traffic comes from direct traffic.

I also should have the ability to request a reset the rating of my site while it is in a “WIP”. People will vote bad because they want it now. So when the site is actually open it could have a bad rating from the start because people are inpatient.

I am not saying it should be something like me saying, “reset my site’s rating”, and they do it. If it’s a freshly bought domain I shouldn’t have to worry about it at all. If it was a “WIP” site I should have to provide some evidence of the situation. Sorry, but these things are never black and white. There are edge cases that need special attention.

For those who want to defend their internet reputation I suggest,

http://www.reputation.com/

So let me get this straight. You are telling me that I need to tell my clients, they need to spend an extra $99 a month to $15000 flat because a poorly described, bugged product in it’s infancy gives them bad rating, a rating that doesn’t even belong to them, but is attached to the domain they wanted, that had become available, and that this should be a concern for them because the company has done a poor job to make sure that that users of the product understand what it is actually rating? I am not sure if you are joking or being serious here.

Don’t get me wrong I support the CDA and I’m all for freedom of speech. I don’t mine the opinion rating of sites. In fact, they are a useful tool to for both customer and company, as long as:

  • It actually belongs to that site and not a previous site that had the domain.

  • It is completely clear to all users, no matter their level of their comprehension, that it is not security based but opinion based, thus removing and false sense of security the user may have or possible damage to the site.

Avast needs to do a bit more on this because people are assuming it is like McAfee’s SiteAdvisor, and not like Google+ because it is coming from a AntiVirus company.

  • There is a way for site owners to dispute possible malicious or incorrect ratings easily. Even WoT allows that.

  • There is more information provided than a colored icon about the rating. Doesn’t have to a lot of info. But even something like:
    Within the last week this site has received:
    10 Good ratings | 5 Bad ratings.
    It has been marked as:
    Shopping, Social/Gaming, and IT/Downloads.

This doesn’t give the over all rating count so can’t really be used for cheating the system.

  • That there is more detailed rating than an altered Facebook like button.

  • There are better checks and balances in the rating to help prevent malicious or incorrect ratings.

As Gargamel360 said it’s an “unregulated user-based site rating system”. Even WoT has theirs with checks and balances.

There are two components in the rating system: user ratings and information received from our over 100 trusted partners. The latter group consists of validated companies and organizations (e.g. VeriSign, PhisTank, TRUSTe, several anti-virus companies etc) maintaining e.g. black lists of malicious web sites. WOT reputation algorithm takes both components into account and calculates a reputation for every web site in the system every 30 minutes. We have currently over 31 million web sites rated this way

Yes, it’s in it infancy, but when one or more of the “fundamental flaw(s)” with a service can cause a lot of unjust financial damage to companies. It calls for a larger solution than just sticking your head in the sand or being patient for a fix. In the time it takes for Avast to get it to maturity there could be a lot of financial damaged caused. When you are are a large company like Avast that a lot of people trust, for a peace of mind and safety, while on the net you have a lot of responsibility to make sure all parties involved, with something like this, aren’t receiving false negative consequences for your product and actions.