Talk:Zedo

California: San Francisco Bay Area Start‑class

	California portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	San Francisco Bay Area portal This article is supported by San Francisco Bay Area task force (assessed as Low-importance).

This article was nominated for deletion on June 28, 2007. The result of the discussion was keep.

I was used to trust Wiki for the quality of the information available. I am now feeling really desapointed to see ZEDO described as a "respectfull" company in here ! ZEDO is a spyware,malware ... does not matter the name we give to it! The article must reflect the truth at some point - There is hundreds of post on the computing blogs relating the problem - there is thousands of computers infected —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.241.171.72 (talk) 21:53, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This page is a general description with 3rd party sources. I am new to wikipedia and am getting my feet wet with this article. Please give me a fair shot and let me know what i need to fix. Ispartacus 00:31, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, as the admin who deleted this the first time, I'll give you the shot. But, you need to fix your refs. Please use the proper citation templates. AKRadecki^Speaketh 01:36, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ZEDO is known spyware and I have edited the page to reflect as much. wagsbags 23:55, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This page is stated in a way that is reminiscent of an advertisement. 72.196.196.230 13:39, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a terrible article. It should be completely rewritten or deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.30.193.165 (talk) 15:06, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

References added

I have added citations from The New York Times and The Independent. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 00:48, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ZEDO is intrusive spyware. Why does this FACT keep getting removed from edits? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.169.14.104 (talk) 23:07, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article should be deleted instead you should what is zedo, ways you can remove it from your coputer —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.109.113.143 (talk) 00:07, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

February 2008

There is almost nothing of value in this article. What would be useful is how zedo works on your system and how to remove it. I removed some garbage that was irrelevant, but really the whole thing ought to go. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.213.0.194 (talk) 14:35, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a how-to guide, so your suggestion of adding information about how to "remove it" would be inappropriate. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 14:45, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is common sense that any page about malware would include the obvious information about how to remove it, just as if you look up the flu it will contain information about the flu vaccine, and so on. As a matter of fact, ZimZalaBim, "not a how to guide" is not even one of the headings on the page you referenced. But "not your web host" is, and so is "not censored". Please immediately stop removing the basic information from this page for whatever reason.Jemima charmlimit (talk) 23:35, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Read down the page, and you'll find WP:NOT#HOWTO. Your other edits are POV original research. We are trying to cite facts about this company, not assertions by people who might be upset about their practices. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 00:04, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Krcassidy intro

I work for ZEDO and am new to Wikipedia. ZEDO has not had an internal representative until now. This article reflects the company vision, our products and services, history and more. I'm still learning how this works and will work on including more and more references and credits to this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Krcassidy (talk • contribs) 17:59, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The following has been also posted at User talk:Krcassidy.

While it can be a good thing to have a company representative involved in editing an article about that company, it's important to remember that the purpose of the ZEDO article in Wikipedia to not to "reflect the company vision, our products and services, history and more". The proper place for that is ZEDO's website. Wikipedia articles are supposed to be encyclopedic, not promotional. You removed several things from the article, including some (referenced) criticism, and that can't be removed without discussion. I'm reverting the article for now to the state it was before your changes.
As a admitted representative of the company, you need to be even more aware than most of Wikipedia's conflict of interest guidelines.
Please discuss your changes here before making them -- thanks! -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 18:20, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- I'm going through the article today, section by section, and trying to remove the overly press-release-ish and promotional tone added by admitted conflict-of-interest editor Krcassidy, since my advice to discuss changes on the talk page was ignored. -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 12:52, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IP tracking ref

69.230.5.173 (talk) 16:48, 7 July 2008 (UTC)thanks to everyone for helping to streamline the article. I have posted a new citation as requested by ZimZalaBim. Please let me know how I can continue to improve this article.[reply]

Well, the cite you added was merely about IP trackign in general, and didn't provide confirmation that Zedo engages in it. As such, it is insufficient. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 17:15, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was page moved. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 23:30, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ZEDO → Zedo — Wikipedia:Manual of Style (capital letters)#All caps, and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (trademarks). —Cptnono (talk) 08:08, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support. This does not appear to be an acronym, so no need for gratuitous all-caps. --DAJF (talk) 15:19, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nominator, MOSTM seems to apply here. TJ Spyke 16:31, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support per WP:MOSTM. There is no evidence of this being an acronym and therefore cannot be capitalized. Arsenikk ^(talk) 11:48, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Introduction: Sskamath

Hi. I work for ZEDO and am taking over the moderation of this page from Krcassidy. I am very new to this and my goal here is to ensure that this page complies with all the Wikipedia rules and regulations. I want to make sure that I do this right and the information posted on this page is true. I would really appreciate it if you could bear with me and work with me on getting the facts straightened out about ZEDO. I agree that this is not the place for marketing ZEDO. I would also appreciate it if I could work with someone at Wikipedia on ensuring that I am headed in the right direction. One of my main goals here is correcting the false notion that ZEDO is spyware. With the correct guidance and proof, I aim to remedy this. Hope to hear from the Wiki community soon :-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sskamath (talk • contribs) 11:57, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sskamath. You have a conflict of interest and it is recommended that you do not edit the page. Please see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. You should raise any concerns on this talk page instead of editing the article directly.Cptnono (talk) 07:36, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks SineBot, for your response. I would be glad to raise my concerns here. Could you please tell me what sort of proof I can provide here to prove to you that Zedo does not engage in or promote spyware? Your feedback is appreciated. Thanks! Sskamath 07:28, 7 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sskamath (talk • contribs)

Oops, I failed to sign correctly above. The article does not say it is spyware. It is verifiable that people have concerns and it is flagged by antispyware programs. It also already says that the company denies that categorization. You can provide it here if independent coverage (a nonsolicited write up in a magazine for example) that goes into more detail. Cptnono (talk) 07:36, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cptnono, I would like to add a link here. This is to the McAfee Siteadvisor test page, which rates Zedo as a good site without any adware, spyware, and other potentially unwanted programs or downloads: http://www.siteadvisor.com/sites/zedo.com/ I will post more independent articles soon, which ratify Zedo as a clean site and one which doesn't engage in any bad internet behavior Sskamath 10:11, 7 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sskamath (talk • contribs)

That site appears to be just a scan of the website. The company's cookies from other sites are what raise concerns. Check out Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Types of sources for some pointers on different types of sources. I'm also a big fan of Google News Archive searches and I assume Zedo has been written up in a few trade or consumer publications. To be completely honest with you, people have valid concerns with Zedo and I don't see how scrubbing this article of that information is possible. Nothing wrong with Zedo's counterpoint, though.Cptnono (talk) 10:49, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cptnono, Yes, I agree with your observations and that scrubbing this article of "bad press" is next to impossible. I have been researching and going through any and all information I could find on the internet, posted by independent sources, about the classifications of adware, spyware, viruses and other such malicious software that users claim Zedo to be a part of. I must re-iterate my point again, that Zedo doesn't fit into any of the definitions of such bad programs. Zedo cookies function in the same manner as any other good, clean ad server's does. Then why the dubious distinction for the Zedo cookies? Seems a bit unfair doesn't it? Could it be possible that users who encounter Zedo cookies are not aware of the exact terminology here, and assume that it's bad just because it's a cookie. Let's agree here that most internet users falsely assume every cookie to be a bad cookie :-)

And once again, thanks for taking the time for posting your thoughts here. Please continue doing this, I really appreciate it --Sskamath 11:20, 7 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sskamath (talk • contribs)

No problem. Tracking cookies when combined with ads are annoying to most people. I'm sure clients enjoy the targeted results but there is going to be some blowback from the general consumer. I assume there is coverage on both sides of the coin.Cptnono (talk) 11:45, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And to sign your name, type four tildes (like this-> ~~~~ ) Cptnono (talk) 11:47, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am using the four tildes. I can see my signature after my posts. I also used the signature button in the edit tools above the page. Sskamath 11:58, 7 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sskamath (talk • contribs)

I think one the reasons people have concerns with Zedo is when they are tagged in spyware/adware searches on computers through scanning software. That is how I came to this article in the first place--my spyware/adware scanner on my PC tagged Zedo as such, and I was curious what Zedo actually was. Cocytus [»talk«] 12:44, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WOT: Web of Trust

I attempted to remove this but it as reverted. McAfee Siteadvisor contradicts it. I personally don't like either since both discuss the website not the tracking cookies. WOT is also "community based" which might be why it gives the site (not the product) bad rep. Cptnono (talk) 22:34, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-up: I'm not trying to start an edit war over this but after thinking about it more it looks like DAJF's revert might have been a knee-jerk reaction. The site is actually rated "poor" which is the 2nd worst (not "very poor... the worst" as we say now). I also assume people can click it to their heart's content meaning without a date the prose may not match up to the source. This would make it unverifiable unless it was given coverage somewhere else.

Update on Web Of Trust: Hi Guys, I have been working on WOT and talking to users who have been complaining that Zedo promotes spyware. Please read my forum on WOT: http://www.mywot.com/en/forum/5423-zedo-is-not-spyware-or-malware

Many of the users have reviewed their negative statements and rated Zedo again, after reading my explanation and understanding exactly how Zedo works. The Zedo rating on WOT is not "very poor" or "poor" anymore, but conflicting. Hope this helps. --Sskamath 07:24, 8 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sskamath (talk • contribs)

WOT was removed from the article some time ago.Cptnono (talk) 08:49, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Updating company information

Wiki Moderators, Hello again! It's been a while. There have been a lot of changes at ZEDO and as a result, I need to update the information on our company information page. As an ardent believer in the rules and regulations of the Wiki community, I did not want to make any changes before I informed you all. Please let me know if I can go ahead and edit the ZEDO page or if you would like me to post the changes here for approval. Thanks everyone and here's wishing you all Happy Holidays! Sskamath 22:46, 13 December 2010 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sskamath (talk • contribs)

Put the changes here with a source. Thanks!Cptnono (talk) 00:40, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cptnono, thanks for your response. Just wanted to let you know that not all the information that I want to update has sources that I can add. A lot of the information is just about the company and things that have changed over the years within the company. I am not quite sure how to give you sources for that information Sskamath 21:45, 14 December 2010 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sskamath (talk • contribs)

Copy the URL to the source here surrounded by brackets with the proposed text. Example: "Zedo blah blah blah.[finantialtimes/story123.com]" Cptnono (talk) 21:49, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My point is that there are no sources to some of the information I need to change. For eg: The "about ZEDO" and "history" sections need updates but there is no link I can provide that directs to the change since these are all changes that we have done within the company. I will provide sources to the criticism and other relevant sections. Can I just update the ZEDO page with sources that I have and you can see what I mean? Thanks for all your help. Sskamath 21:57, 14 December 2010 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sskamath (talk • contribs)

No since we need verifiable sources. If you know something is incorrect (number of employees and the like) it might be appropriate to remove it but we can't replace text with information that is not sourced.Cptnono (talk) 22:01, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, then can I post my whole draft here and you see what I am trying to change about company profile, history et al? You can verify the information and then I can update the main page accordingly. And about employees, locations etc, I will change it on the main page now. Is that ok? Also, I have found that on the ZEDO main wiki page, there are statements that have been added without sources, by other wiki users. Many of these statements are false. What would be the best way to correct something that is already posted without a source, since it is already not sourced? I want to make absolutely sure that I am not breaking any rules here :-) Sskamath 22:07, 14 December 2010 (UTC)