Talk:McAfee SiteAdvisor

Screenshot Updates

The screenshots need to be updated. Currently they reflect the old look, before SiteAdv was acquired by McAfee. --Tuvok 01:17, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Completed -- I've updated bot the FF and IE versions of the screenshots with the latest version of SiteAdvisor. Matthew Fenton [t/c] 11:37, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

System resource for site advisor

Just want to add some information regarding the system resources for siteAdvisor.

My personal experiment is about 9000K. Dilbert5756 00:36, 2 February 2007 (UTC)Dilbert5756

Controversy?

After testing the listed websites:

   "coffeecup.com
    tomcoyote.com
    lavasoft.de
    spamhunters.com
    dknoppix.com"

McAfee SiteAdvisor returned all sites as 'green' (no problems).

I appreciate that the article reads "currently or have been" but surely McAfee are correcting their errors if they revert websites from red to green. (to be fair to McAfee, inc. in addition to complaining about controversy, the article should also cover what McAfee has done to correct this problem).

Matty2002 12:11, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

In the controversy section, there should be some info on how some reviewers miss use the ratings.Would any one consider 1 popup to make give a site a red rating!? 72.130.236.182 22:19, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi. It's Shane from McAfee SiteAdvisor. We do not rate sites red for 1 pop-up. If a site that tested with 1 pop-up is rated red, it is almost certainly red for another reason like high volume spammy e-mail or adware bundled downloads. BTW, we test for but do not rate sites based on the presence or number of cookies found.

It seems someone has a bias in favor of McAfee

The entirety of the "controversy" section has been removed, for reasons that are not entirely clear to me. Does the person who removed these sections have an interest in protecting McAfee or Site Advisor from unfavorable reporting?

It's Shane from McAfee SiteAdvisor here. We asked Wikipedia to review the section called "Invalid Website Ratings" on July 24. Wikipedia investigated and agreed with our points and removed the section on August 8. In our view, the problem with the section was that it elevated a personal dispute about one site rating to make huge claims that all or most of our test results were not valid. To be clear, McAfee did not remove the section. McAfee doesn't claim that its SiteAdvisor service is perfect, and provides lots of opportunities to contact us and dispute our test results. One way is to e-mail complaints shift 2 siteadvisor.com.SiteAdvisor 21:13, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

SiteAdvisor should not control the contents of a Wikipedia article. The fact is that many sites are currently misrated. -- Macduff 00:49, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

"One way is to e-mail complaints" - wish this was true, Shane, but it is not. Your review of our B2B site is inaccurate in the extreme. You violated our Terms by registering on it since it is a site strictly for the use of professional travel agents. Our site emails on a daily basis travel specials by cruise lines and tour companies to travel agents that request them. However, you totally mischaracterized your receipt of those emails, for which you subscribed, by indicated that we were spamming you. Further, we include an "unsubscribe" link within our site and on every email. Yet you indicated that you had "trouble unsubscribing". I have written you on several occassions requesting a review but have received no response. Self appointed watchdogs such as yourself should exercise more internal oversite.

Richard Earls - Publisher - Travel Research Online

Oh, calm down everybody 208.120.218.206 (talk) 02:23, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Censorship

I have posted information on SiteAdvisor that indicates the company uses questionable tactics. Other editors have removed those comments. I don't get it. Why should a criticism of the product not be allowed? The controversy over this product should be allowed. I am not commenting on the "article". I am commenting on SiteAdvisor and thus the comments have a valid place in the article. I at first inadvertantly posted material from the Talk pages, but removed those at the request of the first editor. It seems completely out of context for Wikipedia editors to remove legitimate commentary from an article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rbe2004 (talk • contribs) 20:27, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

PC Magazine's Review Section contains some chronicaling of the criticism posted in the article, including their own SiteAdvisor rating. Rbe2004 (talk) 20:44, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

The total elimination of legitimate criticism of McAffee is not justifiable. This page is nothing more than an advertisement for SiteAdvisor. There are sustantial criticisms of the product and they deserve a place on this page. Rbe2004 (talk) 13:33, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

See WP:V. Unsourced criticism has no place here, whether or not you think it's "legitimate". Find sources to back up your statements, otherwise it's original research and must stay out.Cúchullain ^t/c 17:55, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

The bias here is to allow what essentially amounts to a McAffee ad on Wikipedia. I respectfully submit, then, if no mention of a well-known criticism is to be permitted, that at the very least the impartiality of the article be called into question. An article on the issue I raise is in the process of being written now by a major computer news journal. Rbe2004 (talk) 18:34, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

And no, forum discussions are not reliable sources.--Cúchullain ^t/c 17:57, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Deleted legal threat by 87.52.69.125. By the way, the references currently cited in the criticism section are not reliable sources. Unless such sources can be found, the section will be removed. Feezo (Talk) 15:49, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Neutrality

There is no question that the neutrality of this article is in doubt. It amounts to an advertisment for McAffee when a well known, if difficult to document, contraversy exists. I am requesting that until the dispute is resolved, the above banner remains. Resolution does not mean a summary deletion by other editors. It has been suggested on this very page by employees of McAffee that they have requested and accomplished the removal of criticism. This is a poor reflection on the "editorial process". Simply removing the banner, as you have done, amounts to an edit war, prohibited by Wikipedia. I am requesting that this be handled in a manner other than summary removal of the "Neutrality" banner which sends users to the discussion page.Rbe2004 (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Cúchullain, please see my comments on your talk page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rbe2004 (talk • contribs) 19:04, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

We write the content of articles based on information that anyone can verify, now or in the future, published by reliable sources -- meaning, sources that have widespread recognition as credible and that what they publish they have themselves probably checked.

Like a lot of reference works, this means that sometimes, facts will be "known" that are not in fact able to be sourced from reliable sources, in which case, we actually try to avoid adding them. Even if it means Wikipedia is slightly out of date on some cutting edge stuff. If it matters, some other source will usually mention it, and we can use that.

Examples of sources which are not usually treated as reliable include posts on forums (because anyone can post them), individual's websites, and files held by individuals but not referenced by some actual reliable source (such as an information site of repute, etc). If you can find a reliable source that has widespread credibility, that agrees with your views about the controversy, then it will be possible to include a note to that effect. Unfortunately even if you, I, and 1000 others are sure this idea is true, it still isn't counted as "reliable" or "verified" * for Wikipedia purposes * because no major mainstream source has noted it, recognized its existence, and so on.

I hope this helps a bit. It's not perfect (few things will be), and it favors the mainstream views over more unusual ideas, but it's a communally agreed compromise we use to balance the risk of including material that later editors will judge flawed. We know that as a result of this decision, sometimes valid information is excluded, and communally, * we have accepted that compromise and situation *.

Even if you disagree, you now need to accept it as well, as this is how we work, and it is likely to remain this way for the foreseeable future. If you need more clarification, let me know. Shell ^babelfish 20:27, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Shell Kinney has said everything there is to say on this. Rbe2004, your first step will be trying to find reliable sources discussing criticism of SiteAdvisor, if any are to be found. Until then, the material must stay out.--Cúchullain ^t/c 06:25, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Website?

No information on the website? You don't have to download the browser add-on in order to test websites? No information on the add-on? -- Kai ^talk 01:57, 1 July 2007 (UTC) Cúchullain, please see my comments on your talk page.

The Disappearing Article

Just deleting 90% of the article and saying that you are removing advertising is not sufficient. Twice now i've seen the article decimated. It's like modern graffiti. removing the whole article and labelling your edit 'removed advertising' is petulant.