|WikiProject Internet||(Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)|
References in article
The references in the main text of the article are not reproduced at the bottom. 18.104.22.168 19:50, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Regarding paragraph 1, sentence 5, which states that the web bug raises privacy concerns, someone has indicated that a citation is needed. I would suggest the following:  Prof. Mark (talk) 16:02, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
I have submitted the article HTTP cookie for peer review (I am posting this notice here as this article is related). Comments are welcome here: Wikipedia:Peer review/HTTP cookie/archive1. Thanks. - Liberatore(T) 16:56, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
Why is the article titled Web Beacon rather than Web Bug?
I was wondering why the main article was headed as "Web Beacon" rather than the term "Web Bug"
I had never heard the term "Web Beacon" until today, when I refered someone to the article on Web Bugs.
- Can you cite your sources? I did a quick google search and it was this talk page that came up for "web bug removal". Google themselves also refer to this object as "image beacon" in their docs for Page Speed. Patorjk (talk) 14:42, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Web Beacon sounds like it was a term thought up by some large marketing department to make the web bugs sound more acceptable to the general public. I'd go for the term that is used by the general public, not the term that companies with a particular barrow to push want used.
- I Agree! In my opinion, web beacon should be redirected to web bug, not the other way around.--Smarbin 04:41, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
- I also agree. --NealMcB 22:25, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Well if everyone agrees, then make a change!
- I agree. I had never heard of the term "web bug" until I saw this article. This use of the word "bug" is confusing in the context of the software world. I think it's also inconsistent with the commonly used term. A simple Google search shows 13x times more results for "web beacon" than it does for "web bug", I don't think that can be discounted. I don't think this article's name change was justified, and I think it conflicts with the current trend of usage for the term. Patorjk (talk) 14:42, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Firefox 3 'Better Privacy' add-on
Should this article's title be changed back to Web Beacon?
A simple Google search shows 367,000 results for "web bug" and 4,940,000 for "web beacon". I believe this article is not using the popular terminology for this term. One can argue that "web beacon" is more friendly and was probably created by big bad spyware companies, but so what? Shouldn't this article use what's commonly used? The discussion for changing the name to Web Bug happened back in 2006, I think over the last 5 years the "web beacon" term has won out, as I'd never heard of "web bug" until today, and thought it rather confusing since "bug" has other meanings in the web development world.
What is the argument for titling this article "web bug" rather than the more popular "web beacon"? Should we change it back to "Web Beacon"? If you want to argue certain industries use the term, please provide sources. One person listed Google as using web bug, but I see google using "image beacon" on the docs for their Page Speed addon. Patorjk (talk) 14:56, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
- Agree it should be changed back. This is the first I've heard of "web bug." I'm also adding a new topic on how email beacons have seemingly been sanitized here.
--22.214.171.124 (talk) 15:21, 10 April 2012 (UTC)Doug Bashford
- Yes, change back to web beacon, as this is now the prevailing term far and away. The term web bug is antiquated and misleading, as it seems to mean a computer bug (i.e. an error). 00:47, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
This article has been, and will be sanitized?
It looks like this article has been sanitized, particularly regarding email beacons. For example:
E-mail Web beaconsWeb beacons are used by e-mail marketers, including spammers, to verify that.... End quote.
Web beacons embedded in e-mails have greater privacy implications than beacons embedded in Web pages. Typically, the URL of web beacons contained in e-mail messages carry a unique identifier. This identifier is chosen when the e-mail is sent and recorded together with the recepient e-mail address. The later download of the URL signals that the e-mail has been read. The sender of the e-mail is therefore also able to record the exact time that a message was read and the IP number of the computer used to read the mail or the proxy server that the user went through. In this way the sender can gather detailed information about when and from where each particular recipient reads e-mail. Additionally, every time the e-mail message is displayed another request goes to the sender's web site.
Others have noted here that vested interests could be downplaying the privacy threats. Even such powerful players as SBC freely admit they use them.
Does Yahoo! include web beacons in email? | Yahoo! Privacy Help
Therefore vigilance is needed, even supposed experts can not be trusted. In certainty, simple economic principles dictate that their beacons be defanged and normalized within the online culture that they themselves help create. This is not acceptable.
--126.96.36.199 (talk) 16:02, 10 April 2012 (UTC)Doug Bashford
- AICPA Generally Accepted Privacy Principles , p. 31, at http://www.aicpa.org/InterestAreas/InformationTechnology/Resources/Privacy/GenerallyAcceptedPrivacyPrinciples/DownloadableDocuments/GAPP_BUS_%200909.pdf