If WebRep does not indicate "red" when a site is malicious or infected, it worths nothing.
This is a job for technical people.
If not, it's another WOT of nothing...
I have always found WOT to do a very good job in conjunction with Avast and certainly would not call it nothing. It has helped my family and I working in conjunction with Avast to keep us safe on-line. In fact, for five years ago or more, I was hoping for some kind of early warning detection system for on-line sites to help protect users from malicious content before they interact with the site.
The potentials of both Avast's Web Rep and WOT are strong. I agree with Tech, Web Rep should have some sort of blocking system for Red sites as WOT currently offers. However, Web Rep will have an advantage that WOT does not have, which is the direct imput from Virus Lab data, which will aid in rating reliability.
The problem with both is that people may downgrade sites, not so much because of a bad experience with a site, but because of a problem with a site owner or administrator, where appraisals might be based more on emotion than factual data. As a WOT user, based on what I have seen in using the software, I find their ratings to be about 75%-80% accurate. But if any users are not happy with a rating, they can over-ride it and comment.
I think both WOT and Web Rep are better than McAfee Site Adviser, which forces you to install Yahoo's tool-bar, who's ratings are rarely updated, and who's information does not give specifics as to why a site may be bad.
The interview with Vlk was great! And it will be most interesting to see how both WOT and Web Rep will work to define and re-define user protection standards, working alongside their virus protection and any other security software.
I enjoyed the presentation very much! Thank you!
Jack