Jump to content

Talk:AOL/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

Proposed merge with Criticism of AOL

Why was this separated in the first place? Most of the content will be removed for bad or no sources, and it seems strange that the criticism is on its own page... Air ♠ Combat What'sup, dog? 17:56, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

I believe that criticism can be defined as an expression of disapproval of something based on perceived faults. I hope Wikipedia would be a source for information instead of an editorial platform for opinion and hyperbole. I would like to see factual information free of bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zyippee (talk • contribs) 02:33, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
I personally believe that the article "Criticism of AOL" should be merged with the article "AOL" Dinnypaul (talk) 15:48, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
I didn't read through all of the criticism, but note the "walled garden" part in the lead of that page. I was just looking at the lead (of an old version of this page): "AOL is best known for its online software suite, also called AOL". This used to be the case, I'm not sure the younger generation will remember this.. And since then, the company was bought and spun off, then bought again.. I haven't followed AOLs history, if it is "just" a "media" company now, then I think criticism belongs if it applies to the current business. comp.arch (talk) 14:09, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
Support. Cut out the unsourced or improperly sourced material (which sounds like bad personal griping), and there's just not enough for an actual article. oknazevad (talk) 16:00, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
Weak Oppose, but not a definite oppose for the following reasons:
  • "Removed for bad or no sources" Bad sources? Really? I looked through the citations and all of them look fine to me, most of them independent.
  • Yes, it's true that this article has a fair amount of uncited information, but there is a fair amount of statements cited with reliable sources as well, and the unsourced sentences may actually have been discussed in reliable sources, and even if not, I would strongly decrease with Oknazeyad that the source information is "just not enough for an actual article". However, I only gonna give a weak oppose given that I'm not entirely sure if the unsourced info has actually been discussed in sources.
  • Just because an article contains tons of bias is not a reason for merging or deletion.
  • People here are complaining how there isn't enough content for a separate article, but then's there people who complained that an article with only nine short sentences is appearently too much for another article. This is not meant to be any sort of attack, but just thought I'd share that funny thought.

editorEهեইдအ😎 22:24, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Support. Most other articles have criticism sections within the article rather than separate. Also sources are all right. I believe it fits well.
Merged: Proposal has been on for 9 months, long enough for a conclusion. 3 support (original proposer and me included) and 1 weak oppose - I think I can translate that into a yes for the merge. --G&CP (talk) 15:50, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on AOL. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:24, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Major problem with one word - "Pioneer"

With all due respect to AOL and the major role it played in making "Online" popular, the sentence "AOL was one of the early pioneers of the internet in the mid-1990s" is absolutely false and distorts history and the company's role in it.

The Internet was around with various services long before the World Wide Web was created on the Internet and started coming on strong in 1993-1994 within larger organizations. Other closed-system services accessible by PC's were also around long before AOL as well. AOL came to the party as competition for the closed-system services, and did a remarkable job which they should be known for. People could now easily get an excellent online service from their living rooms (not the Internet, not the WWW). Then, once the Web was created, more and more people started getting fast Internet-Web access on their desktop computers at work, with a direct connection to the exploding Internet. AOL had nothing to do with the early Internet or the later World Wide Web.

The next step in the evolution came from Earthlink, a true Internet Service Provider (ISP) who made it very easy for any individual with a home computer to jump directly onto the racing freight train of the Internet and the WWW, using a standard phone modem like AOL used. Other ISPs started springing up everywhere, providing direct Internet access in direct competition to AOL's closed online system (all content provided from AOL's computer servers). Many professionals wondered how AOL was going to survive, with the real Internet coming on so strong. AOL had their world of services, and the Internet had it's world of services and sites. AOL was obviously troubled by new and extremely significant competition from the Internet, and ISPs capturing the monthly fees for access, and so finally created a backdoor gateway to the Internet, likely in order to survive. It was obviously a defensive measure which in no way qualifies them to be called a Pioneer, at least not in reference to the Internet.

I was the consultant and tech in people's homes helping them decide on which service to choose and set up. If one wanted to be on the Internet, one chose an ISP to get there directly. One did not choose AOL to get there in a roundabout manner, at least not once it was explained to them. Providing the gateway helped AOL keep many of their existing customers for a long time however, because people were already hooked into the great content AOL provided, and they already had AOL email addresses, and adding "the Internet" to their list of proprietary services was a very good thing. The backdoor approach was somewhat troublesome however, in that I had countless service calls to help clients understand it, and fix it when broken. Then broadband began to become available from the phone and cable companies, and many people dropped AOL at that point because AOL did not have broadband for a while. AOL eventually gave up this approach and joined the Internet community directly.

So, would someone else like to contribute and fix the article? As a start I'd suggest replacing the problematic sentence with perhaps "AOL was one of the primary driving forces in giving massive numbers of individuals an excellent 'Online' experience and service in their homes before the World Wide Web and direct Internet access became available for home personal computers."

I have no sources. I was there on the front lines, loving the WWW from late 1993 on, helping my clients get set up with all these new great technologies. I was a happy AOL customer, and a Compuserve customer before that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.80.19.60 (talk) 01:53, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

"I have no sources. " Well that is a problem. Wikipedia needs sources to develop its articles, and discussions between editors involve the reliability, POV, and overall quality of specific sources. Changing an article to match someone's personal views is going against policy.

Since you have over 20 years of experience with the Internet, do you know of any publications which cover AOL's business history? Dimadick (talk) 09:36, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 December 2016

47.200.210.117 (talk) 06:21, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
 Not done as it is not clear what changes you want to be made. Kosack (talk) 09:25, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 March 2017

Can you please change these source links back from:

To:

They now redirect to sign up/subscribe pages instead of the articles themselves. 103.14.116.43 (talk) 00:37, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Done -- Dane talk 01:01, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

More critical content here than on any other company I can think of

More critical content here than on any other company I can think of. Is this kinda weird? Does this article need a rewrite? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.56.132.111 (talk) 15:23, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on AOL. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:32, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on AOL. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:26, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on AOL. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:31, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 March 2018

On December 4th, 2012, AOL acquired the Silicon Valley startup, Buysight for an undisclosed amount. This acquisition was meant to push AOL forward into the maturing space of dynamic creative, retargeting, and optimization and plug into AOL's Advertising.com advertising technology stack.[1]

On August 7, 2013, AOL announced the acquisition of Adap.TV for $405 million. This move was to add a global programmatic video stack for advertisers and publishers to the portfolio of AOL's media business and to establish leadership in the emerging video area. Combining this with the existing AOL ON video solution put AOL in a position of propelling themselves to 2nd in online video content consumption for 9 of the previous 12 months.[2] Aaronspcmsm (talk) 19:07, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:02, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Time Warner Acquistion / Merger

Given that this is one of the most famous fiascoes in US corporate history, shouldn't there be a separate section discussing the lead-up, fall-out and undoing of the merger? Or perhaps even a separate article? At any rate, the discussion seems very weak here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.202.33.17 (talk) 05:34, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 April 2018

27.106.11.75 (talk) 11:13, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. NiciVampireHeart 11:27, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 November 2018

change "At the height of its popularity, it purchased the media conglomerate Time Warner..." to "In 2001, at the height of its popularity, it purchased the media conglomerate Time Warner..."

I had to go to the Wikipedia page on Time Warner in order to find this date. It seems reasonable to include it here as well.

thanks 98.25.86.38 (talk) 17:32, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

 Done, this is also stated later in this article, but I agree that adding it here makes the sentence clearer. Gulumeemee (talk) 07:20, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Members Domain for AOL

URL members.aol.com

When was the Members Domain for AOL discontinued?

~~Ben~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 35.138.234.230 (talk) 01:05, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

EON ?

In chapter "3.8 Certified email", 3rd para, last sentence is mentioned "EON". What is meant? Please make it a link. --- Steue (talk) 02:35, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

That appears to be a misquote from the source provided (link). The whole paragraph states, "In fact, I hope Goodmail succeeds, and that it has lots of competition. I also think it and its competitors will eventually transform into services that more directly serve the interests of mail recipients. Instead of the fees going to Goodmail and AOL, they will also be shared with the individual recipients." I've changed the article text to match the quote. Aoi (青い) (talk) 03:23, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Some mention of the film You've Got Mail?

I figured since the entire film was predicated on the concept of using AOL, it should at least have a mention somewhere in this giant article. Also, I don't post much on Wiki, just a few fixes here and there: do people actually read these "Talk" sections? Can someone confirm it by answering somehow?

I'm not sure where in the article a mention of the film would be appropriate; do you have any suggestions? Otherwise, perhaps we can just add a link to the film in the "See also" section. Aoi (青い) (talk) 20:12, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

CNBC video about AOL's history

  • "The Rise And Fall Of AOL". CNBC. 2019-08-15.

This may be a good external link for this article or a history article. It's a video talking about why AOL failed. WhisperToMe (talk) 08:48, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

"Games.com" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Games.com. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 February 14#Games.com until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 00:11, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

The article should refer to the once universal use of 'AOL' as a one-word dismissal of clueless posters in the days of bulletin boards and offline readers. Stub Mandrel (talk) 18:27, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Split Request

We should have a page about AOL Inc made seperate, like Yahoo! Inc, AOL Inc owned multiple other companies and had a history of other products before the unveiling of AOL that should be a seperate page. Newfoundbantustan (talk) 03:00, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

I'd like to bring back the section we used to have on AOL in popular culture, as it was quite important in 90's and 2000's. At some point it seems that the entire page was scrubbed of all of AOL's old history, but quite a bit has made it back. Will need to go back in the page history to get the section that used to exist, but will write another reference I found here first:

Futurama s1e8: A giant ball of garbage from the 20th century is hurtling towards earth, and a major portion of the ball is made of AOL floppy discs. Garfieldnate (talk) 12:32, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Futurama s2e13: just logged onto AOL! We're online! (it's actually some futuristic VR thingy). Episode is full of references to early internet: chat rooms, sex and flashy ads everywhere, "please sign off! I have to use the phone." "You've got mail" Garfieldnate (talk) 14:55, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

AOL's history of Web access and browser used in the early days was incorrect in the intro.

The article gave the misleading impression that prior to 1998 when AOL bought Netscape (and its Netscape Navigator browser), they did not provide web access to AOL members, which was simply not true. It's true that at the they first started to offer access to the internet in '94/'95, web access was not initially provided (at first only inernet email, gopher, newsgroup (NNTP), and FTP access were provided and only through AOL's access software rather then as stand-alone TCP/IP apps. When they first offered web access it was through a very basic built-in browser (I don't recall it's name if it had one beyond a generic "Web Browser") within it's AOL access software. It later offered added full TCP/IP support (I think around 1996) for AOL members meaning they could now run operate stand-alone internet apps like Netscape navigator and also around the same time offered stand0alone suite of internet software called AOL OpenRide which combined e-mail, instant-messaging, a web browser and a media player and could be used by AOL members and by others getting their internet access through other ISP's. This browser within OpenRide was called AOL Explorer and was based on the Internet Explorer Trident Engine. It was later spun off a separate app a year later. In 1998, they bought Netscape and it's Netscape Navigator and replaced the AOL Explorer browser with Navigator. So basically, we should update the main body of text to reflect that AOL did not offer web access when it first offered limited internet access, then later it offered web access via a custom built browser, followed by a separate browser app, before finally offering Internet Explorer as the default browser app for AOL members after purchasing Netscape. Notcharliechaplin (talk) 01:38, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

AOL's initial browser was Booklink. Which yeah was very forgettable. I appreciate the interest in accuracy but this stuff is way too detailed for the intro, which is supposed to be a quick overview of a 40-year-old company. I tried to make the intro more of a general overview and put this stuff about the browsers in the history section, where I think it belongs. --Here2rewrite (talk) 02:48, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Password Service

I comtinually receive graphics from AOL that my settings need to be changed. AOL stopped me from using my old password. I have phoned AOL Help for a new password 6 times. I have been on the phone with employees of AOL for approximatelly 2 hours. There is not one representative in that department that knows what to do. I habe been with AOL approximately 20 years. Never have I had so many issues with the service. Aol Reps tell me that my name is not on their computer as the sole owner of the acct. After 20 years and it is not my idea to change my password, it is AOL's idea yet I am forbiden to change it for security reasons. I am taking a college course, Astrology, and it is crucial that I maintain computer contact. This has been quite an issue on my mind. I am 70 years of age. In racking my brain I recall a time that Telekin Computer people were going crazy selling their new miracle computer. Several were set up in many malls. My friends and I were chosen to sit at the computers and try them out. They showed us how to sign in and other apps that were available. Telekin had our names, addresses, and phone numbers and then we forgot about them. Several weeks later my friend Stella revealed to me that her home computer seemed like it was hacked. She was having alot of headaches with her computer. As a last resort she called Telekin and advised them of her computer problems. Telekin advised that their computers could have erased particular things but Telekin would not or could not guarantee that their computers had anything to do with ours. There were short stories in our local newspaper about Telekin being the new top sales 2601:703:180:7090:4558:417:524D:21AB (talk) 00:09, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

but also there were complaints about how it seemed to make unruly mistakes on their home computers. Some had written to the Better Business Bureau. I want AOL to take it from here. Since these strange amd negative things are happening to others. We all may be wrong but it is worth it to pinpoint these troubles. What do you think? I need these issues resolved before I fail this course. Please Help! Thank you. Susan Massaconi, 941-735-3068. 2922 Saralake Drive South, Sarasota, FL 34239 I would hate to have to find and get used to another organization and have to have my mail transferred 2601:703:180:7090:4558:417:524D:21AB (talk) 00:25, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

I wish there were a section talking about AOL's introduction of popup ads, the most infamous policy of its history next to refusing to cancel accounts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prestonmcconkie (talk • contribs) 10:20, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

  1. ^ http://www.adweek.com/digital/aol-buys-silicon-valley-ad-tech-firm-145699/
  2. ^ http://www.businessinsider.com/aol-buys-adaptv-for-405-million-2013-8
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:AOL/Archive_4&oldid=1249338591"