Talk:Blekko

Aim to/ Aim at

Hi. In English, you aim TO do something and you aim AT something. "I aim to achieve great success"; "I aim my weapon at the wall", "We aim TO please"; "They took aim at the target". --Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 00:57, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Even if "to aim at" is less common than "to aim to", and is generally used in a slightly different way, still there is nothing wrong with the phrase as it was. There are far worse errors against English language on wikipedia, on which to loose your obvious need for nitpicking. Les us please respect the effort of the original author. BTW "Hi" is not correct English, either, according to some. Jan olieslagers (talk) 09:05, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to disappoint you, but I am not going to revert it again. I don't play your kind of games. I have better things to do. If it is such a petty change, why are you wasting your time reverting it THREE times? Do you know about the three-revert rule?--Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 18:54, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Could both of you please maintain a professional tone? This is starting down the path to a flame war. The point is this, Jan: I nitpick on any grammatical mistake I see while reading a Wikipedia article. The fact that neither I nor Gabriel read every article, or notice every mistake, in no way disqualifies us from editing mistakes we do see. Wikipedia generally uses the most frequent usage, and if we see a case where that convention is not held to, we have every right to change it. Also, you keep bringing up the "original author", but as I pointed out on your talk page, the person who puts down the first couple sentences of an article does not own that article, and does not have a right to have every word of their original retained. Besides that, unless you are the original author, I don't see them complaining about the change. Lolinder (talk) 19:41, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Lolinder, thanks for the reminder. I certainly want to avoid personal conflict, indeed I meant to unwatch this page. Allow me to explain that I try to avoid "the most frequent usage" because it leads to what is called in German Einheitswurst, I think we could call it the least common multiple. It is a phenomenon that rather scares me, the whole world is turning to English as a 'lingua franca' - in itself not a bad thing, at the contrary - but in the process this beautiful multi-faceted language gets narrowed to its minimum and that's where I feel compelled to act. The original phrase is uncommon, I will again agree to that. But that does not make it incorrect, so for me it could be left at what it was. English is a beautiful language, with a broad panoply of variations on many themes. I should be sorry to see these disappear. If you have any academical/encyclopedical source to confirm "aiming at providing (whatever)" is incorrect English, I'll be glad to recognise authority. And no, I am not the original autor; and I agree the original author can never claim any rights on the original text. Still I feel the original effort merits every respect, unless proven incorrect. FWIW, I am not a native speaker of the English language, but I do live nearby, and have visited England very frequently over the last 40 years or so, both for work and on vacation trips; I think I am entitled to some degree of opinion on what is correct English and what is not. But again, do feel free to come up with a source of authority if you wish. Finally, my repeated gratitude for your polite and correct style of discussion. Kindly, Jan olieslagers (talk) 20:12, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Jan, your rationale for the change as a way to try and save the diversity of language is praiseworthy and I do the same in the languages that I work with. I had a Swiss professor for French at university and will never forget him saying that in French, where possible, one never repeats words in close proximity in a text. I've always observed that and strive for colourful diverse vocabulary. But at the same time, where something scratches you ear (for whatever reason - incorrect use, wrong register, incorrect within context, etc), I opt for something that the ear will find pleasing. Best regards, --Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 21:12, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Gabriel, your reply is really warming my old heart. Possibly, the three of us are creating a nice example story of three educated critical persons, each accidently coming across one article when it was mentioned in the "did you know" - starting a violent but short argument about English vocubalury/grammar - none of us an Englander, just see the irony of it all! - staunch yet polite discussion - how many centuries to get our statue? Don't get me started on what it should look like! Broadly smiling, yours very kindly, Jan olieslagers (talk) 21:32, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

DefamatoryUnsourced or unreliably sourced claims

No further claims of "installs itself without permission" or "malware" will be allowed in this article without two independent reliable sources, meaning notable authors in notable publications which explicitly state such accusations. --Lexein (talk) 04:59, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

You seem to be backing out many people's claims about Blekko being malware, and now you appear to be claiming ownership of this article. Exactly who are you? Do you work for Blekko? The fact that Blekko takes over users' browsers without their knowledge is acting like malware and many people try to get it reflected in this article. Neutral POV demands that it be included. Edmund Blackadder (talk) 07:20, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Standard Wikipedia consensus-based policy will not allow unsourced claims, or false statements, or exaggerations of sources' statements. You play fast and loose with the truth; for example, I've claimed no ownership of this article. I am, however, removing unsourced, false, and exaggerated claims. There is no reliable source for Blekko "taking over" any browser. CNet's shareware installer does it, according to all the unreliable sources. That CNET has not apparently made removal easy is CNET's responsibility, not Blekko's. Get your facts, and your sources, straight. Oh, and btw I do not work for Blekko. --Lexein (talk) 02:28, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Blekko's own page states that they take over the home page and the search upon download. My facts and sources are straight, and I am trying to find a objective way to insert this into the article. You, on the other hand, spam defamatory statements on my user page and insult anybody who attempts to state any fact that is not in keeping with Blekko's story. Are you paid by them? What company do you work for? You certainly seem to be doing your best to burnish their reputation. Edmund Blackadder (talk) 08:05, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Your argument would have more merit if you provided a link to "Blekko's own page" here. Ok, so it's in the article lead paragraph, where it doesn't belong either. Well, Blekko's toolbar is not called malware there, or in your proffered blog, either. The cited blog does not call Blekko's toolbar malware, only "potentially unwanted", and it refers to CNET's installer as the problem, not Blekko's toolbar. This is not an article about CNET. There is still no reliable source claiming that ANYONE notable or reliable thinks Blekko's toolbar is malware. Finally, all search engine toolbars either replace, or offer to replace, your search and default homepage URLs, not just Blekko's. Misquotation, misparaphrase, and exaggeration of sources really does not go over well here at Wikipedia, and now you know that. See WP:RS and WP:Citing sources and Verifiability, not truth.

Told you already, I'm not at all associated with Blekko. Apparently you didn't see that I added reviews, including two that are not positive. Removing unsourced facts, exaggerations of sources, or personal opinion about an entity is not "burnishing their reputation."

It's simple: please do not add claims without citing reliable independent sources which actually make that claim, do not add personal opinion or bias, do not cite unreliable sources, and try not to take it personally when edits are reverted due to reasons like those I've offered. And do not continue to make false assertions about me. My edits were on policy, sorry you don't like them. --Lexein (talk) 12:04, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

False, unsourced, defamatory, unreliably sourced, and debunked claims, again

See above. --Lexein (talk) 08:15, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Censorship, again

Once again Lexein has acted as a Wikipedia censor.

In the article about Blekko I added "As of 2012, this search engine installs itself without asking the user's permission. It redirects attempts to use Google or Bing search engines to blekko." My comment was removed within hours. My statement is completely true based on my experience and I will be very happy to testify to it in a court of law, as, I suspect, will the many authors of articles that come up when you search (in a non-Blekko search engine) the phrase "Is Blekko a virus?" A dozen witnesses count for a lot more than one "reliable source" in any court of law.

Lexein apparently is unfamiliar with legal terminology. A claim is not "defamatory" (or false) when it is true. She or he should be a lot more careful about who they accuse of defamation.

Lexein: What reliable or notable source has debunked the often repeated claims that Blekko installs itself without the user's permission and that it redirects google and Bing searches to Blekko?

Lexein says that all search engines, like Blekko, install themselves or attempt to install themselves as the default search, which is true. None of them, except Blekko, redirect a user's search from their engine of choice to Blekko.

Wouldn't it be more honest and ethical of Lexein to refute these claims within the context of the article (as in under the heading of "Controversies") than to censor them and hurl unsourced insults at honest posters? Then the reader could be the judge. Isn't that the way Wikipedia is supposed to work? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boblo949 (talk • contribs) 20:18, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

No. I'm one of tens of thousands of Wikipedia editors empowered by consensus to remove unsourced statements. That you consider that to be censorship is your problem, not ours. I've been polite to this point, and I will continue to attempt to be so. Your personal experience constitutes the very definition of WP:Original research, and is not usable as a reliable source in any encyclopedia, let alone Wikipedia.

I never said "all search engines install themselves", as you misquote. I said, and intended to convey, that search bars, when installed by users, reset default search sources. And some, in the past, have indeed overreached and interfered with use of other search resources, and have been difficult to remove. However, Blekko's search bar does not "install itself" - its install process is explicitly started by the user. The difficulty in removing it is down to CNET's installer, as documented and discussed previously. Having installed, and easily removed Blekko's search bar, following the instructions, my experience directly contradicts yours. Now what do we do? We report neither in Wikipedia articles, since neither you nor I are published, nor widely known, authors, nor has our work been cited in published works: we are not reliable sources. Please read WP:RS, and WP:V, and, too, WP:OR.

Your claims have been made, and debunked, in unfortunately, unreliable sources. Live by the sword, and die by it: none of it goes into Wikipedia until independent, verifiable, reliable sources cover it. The fact is that no RS (searched off-Blekko) have seen fit to cover your claims and frustrations. This should tell you something: There's nothing inherently wrong with Blekko's search bar, or search engine. If there was, it would have been covered in CERT and other reputable malware and threat news sources. But, interestingly, there does seem to be a concerted negative publicity campaign against Blekko. Are you part of that? Please read WP:COI and WP:BATTLEGROUND. --Lexein (talk) 17:32, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request:

Having read both of your comments, the previous discussion and viewed the contentious information I have come to several conclusions. The first relates to the content dispute; the claim: "As of 2012, this search engine installs itself without asking the user's permission. It redirects attempts to use Google or Bing search engines to blekko.", cannot be included in the article without a reliable source because all contentious material must be backed up by such a source. "I know it to be true" isn't sufficient for this to be included because that would be original research. It should also be pointed out that blogs are not reliable sources, especially for controversial statements. I also have some comments on the behaviour of all three editors involved in the discussions about this information. First is that the repeated use of the word "Defamation" by all of you is covered by the policy on legal threats. I request that all of you please think about the implications of what you write. Second is the similar accusations of conflicts of interest that are also thrown about by all parties; this is not acceptable and is definitely not assuming good faith. To summarise, the disputed claim should not be re-added until a reliable source is provided to back it up. An example would be a news article from a reputable publisher. In addition, it is impossible for a collegial atmosphere to be maintained if all editors casually throw around serious accusations, therefore I implore all three of you to think carefully about the meaning of words before you type and to at least try to assume good faith.Mrmatiko (talk) 18:20, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

To Third Opinion Mrmatiko (thank you for any responses you are willing to provide):

--Suppose my posting had read "As of 2012 blekko allegedly installs itself without asking the user's permission." Could some editor remove it, and if so wouldn't they ethically be obligated to remove tens of thousands of similarly phrased and unsourced postings in other Wikipedia articles?

• You would still have needed a source. That other articles need improvement is no reason to allow this article to be damaged by poorly sourced, controversial statements. Also weasel words such as "allegedly" aren't appropriate for wikipedia because we note facts, not rumours.

--If an article were to be written in a "notable" publication that supported my claim wouldn't Wikipedia accept the legitimacy of that article even if it was based exclusively on interviews with bloggers (or witnesses)?

• The notability of the publication isn't as important as the reliability. There would have to be some clear evidence in the source beyond hearsay for such a claim.

--Why is it that Wikipedia rejects the word of bloggers inspite of the fact that Wikipedia is itself a blog? (Lexein recently deleted one of my edits because it came from an unreliable source--Wikipedia.)

• Wikipedia is not a blog. Wikipedia can't be used to reference claims within Wikipedia articles because that would be circular referencing and damages the credibility of the encyclopedia.

--Why does Wikipedia accept as reliable sources publications that are notorious for their lies?

• A reliable source is (by definition) one that isn't notorious for lies, so I'm not sure what you are trying to get at here. If you have concerns about the reliability of a source then find a better one.

--Although I once considered Wikipedia a reasonable place to start, as a scholar I, and the vast majority of teachers in America agree with Lexein that Wikipedia is unreliable. So given that Wikipedia is no Oxford English Dictionary, no Brittanica, no New York Times and it concedes that information on Wikipedia is unreliable, why can't it at least serve some useful purpose by allowing open discussion and debate within its articles?

• Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a debating platform. The discussion on content of articles can take place here; discussion and debate on the subject should take place elsewhere, such as forums or blogs.

--You, the unbiased the third party, criticized the behavior of the editors (I assume including me). Since I really don't know, who do you believe I defamed or accused of defamation or accused of conflict of interest?

• I don't believe that you defamed anyone. The problem is that words such as "defame" have serious legal definitions and can easily be assumed to be a legal threat, editors who make legal threats will find them selves blocked quite quickly. I also apologise for implying that you made legal threats, having re-read your statement, you appear to be the only one of the three editors involved in this dispute (which I've taken to also involve Talk:Blekko#Defamatory claims) to have avoided misusing legal terminology.

To Lexein: You accused me of making false and defamatory claims and then you have the temerity to say "I've been polite to this point..."? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boblo949 (talk • contribs) 21:30, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I've interleaved my answers using bullet points. --Mrmatiko (talk) 06:33, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Please do not intersperse your comments with those of the editor you are replying to. While this is common practice in mailing lists, where interspersal in a reply is often very good, here it breaks up the effective primary record of a discussion, making it more difficult to follow who is saying what. If it is justified, the prior section really should have a signature added to it (copy of the original), and a note that it is continued below. Instead, if you really need to respond to something point by point, you may wish to adopt the practice of quoting it, perhaps with italics to set it off. See Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Editing comments. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:27, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

1. Hm. I am a long-term editor in good standing, unaccustomed to hints that I might be blocked, for merely sternly opposing off-policy editing. I disagree with Mrmatiko's assessment of "legal threat." I read the policy, and I think I'm well within bounds in my assertions about false, unsourced, and falsely-sourced statements made by IP and registered users about Blekko. Did I make or imply a legal threat? No. Did I write strong cautions to editors to back off using unsourced or false or defamatory language? Yes. But I'm fine with striking through the word "defamatory", and replacing it with "unsourced or unreliably sourced".
2. Yes, I have been polite, and I plan to continue to be so; though I will call a WP:SPADE a spade. --Lexein (talk) 14:54, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

To Third Opinion Mrmatiko:

Thank you very much for your unexpectedly thorough and civil response to my many questions. Unfortunately, I have to contest some of your statements.

--"Allegedly" is NOT a "Weasel Word" as defined by the article that you cited. According to that article "Alleged and accused are appropriate when wrongdoing is asserted but undetermined." (Sorry for the circular reference to a Wikipedia article.)

--Wikipedia's own definitions of notability and reliability seem incoherent to me. And, it is really not clear what constitutes "clear evidence" and who is allowed (and not allowed0 to make that determination.

--By Wikipedia's definition of circular referencing the Oxford English Dictionary could not refer to itself. I think that may come as a surprise to OED, but I may be wrong.

--There is not enough time or space to address the issue of unreliable sources that Wikipedia accepts without question.

--I am very sorry to say that Wikipedia IS a blog, albeit an edited blog. It is a blog that is edited by people with limited expertise. Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia which has been "researched and written by well-educated, well-informed content experts." (Again, sorry for the circular reference to a Wikipedia article.)

--Thank you for qualifying your comments about editors' behavior. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boblo949 (talk • contribs) 09:32, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

I feel that further community input is required to solve this issue and have notified some recent contributors to Blekko of this discussion. --Mrmatiko (talk) 14:23, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

On the topic of Blekko, if the article said “A search engine installs itself without permission”, I’d want a bit of clarification otherwise I wouldn’t take the article very seriously. It sounds like it is some browser configuration being installed rather than a search engine. Anyway, since the issue is causing so much discussion, I agree that finding good source would help the solve issue one way or another. Vadmium (talk, contribs) 06:34, 31 May 2012 (UTC).

I hope that this does get resolved soon and that appropriate warnings to potential users of this software are permitted to be added to this page. I have just spent two hours removing Blekko and other related unwanted software from my computer, as well as fixing browser settings that had been updated - without permission - to redirect searches and replace homepages with Blekko. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.166.8.13 (talk) 10:07, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I provided a link to Blekko's own documentation (http://help.blekko.com/index.php/i-downloaded-the-toolbar-and-some-settings-changed-on-my-ie-browser-how-do-i-change-them-back) as a citation to prove that they take over all your browsers' search engines and home pages (the opening sentence is "By default, downloading the blekko spam free search bar also changes your homepage and default search engine to blekko". This is precisely the claim I (and many others) have been trying to get into the Blekko article. It is opposite the way well-behaved software acts, which asks if you want to change your settings). I believe that, apart from Lexein, the community has been very clear about whether it feels this information belongs in the article--virtually everybody that edits the page is inserting it, only to have it removed by Lexein. I think it belongs in the lead paragraph, potentially even the lead sentence. It is likely the information people coming to the page are most interested in. Edmund Blackadder (talk) 23:31, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

1. Sorry, the blekko documentation link proves literally none of your claim, as I have stated before. Blekko's documentation explicitly states "changes your homepage and default search engine (singular) to blekko". That's two: homepage and default search. Not all. It is not "precisely" anything you and others have been trying to get into the article: you and others have been trying to shoehorn "without consent" and "all" and "virus" and "malware" in; these are simply not supported by any reliable source.
2. The article already includes mention of the search bar in the lead and in the body (in Features), with the Blekko documentation as the source.

Please quote and interpret correctly.

--Lexein (talk) 06:59, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

The thing is, this article is about the search engine. As far as I can tell the issue is with the toolbar that the company provides. Therefore this should definitely not be given much weighting in the lead section. A separate section called "Blekko toolbar" (or something more appropriate) seems like it might be a good idea and I reckon that it could be placed between "features" and "reception". I suggest that we have a go at drafting such a section here, with sources, and then discuss changes until we have consensus on the wording. I'll try and get round to producing a first version a bit later (though anyone else is perfectly welcome to do so first). --Mrmatiko (talk) 06:55, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Note that even if there is a toolbar section, it cannot include or refer to material from unreliable sources.

The article already includes mention of the search bar in the lead and in the body (in Features) with the Blekko documentation as the source. --Lexein (talk) 06:59, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

You are right, I've looked and there don't seem to be any reliable sources at all that can be used to write about the toolbar. If some reliable sources can be found then we can work on this, but until then policy is quite clear that the "information" shouldn't be included in the article.--Mrmatiko (talk) 07:59, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

I fail to see the distinction you are drawing between the "toolbar" and the effects of installing it; and I certainly disagree with an assertion that this article can only be about the Blekko search engine (which runs on Blekko's computers) and not about the Blekko toolbar (which users install on their own computers)--both are Blekko's software. I have provided a link to Blekko's documentation stating that installing their software replaces your Internet Explorer's toolbar. Here is their documentation that they do it to Chrome as well: http://help.blekko.com/index.php/i-downloaded-the-toolbar-and-some-settings-changed-on-my-chrome-browser-how-do-i-change-them-back/. Here it is for Firefox: http://help.blekko.com/index.php/i-downloaded-the-toolbar-and-some-settings-changed-on-my-firefox-browser-how-do-i-change-them-back/. How is this not a reliable source? This is the company's own documentation. And I disagree that putting the information about how Blekko affects users is Undue Weight--the fact that it quietly reconfigures your system is clearly what the majority of people feel ought to be highlighted, and the whole point of "due weight" is that Wikipedia articles should represent the majority viewpoint. Edmund Blackadder (talk) 15:57, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Extrapolating "the toolbar is malicious/unethical" from a document that talks about how to remove the toolbar/change the browser settings back to default is original research. To include this, a reliable source that explicitly states that the toolbar "quietly reconfigures your system" will need to be found. You could only use the documentation to state that the toolbar changes certain browser settings.--Mrmatiko (talk) 16:06, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

No one is "extrapolate" anything and reports of malicious activity are not coming from "documents". They are being quoted from direct experience. As someone who has been the victim of Blekko search engine/toolbar software (it subverted the home page and default search engine on three of the four browsers on my PC) after I failed to see that it had been "included" while downloading other, unrelated software; I am at a total loss as to why Wikipedia's editors are so determined to prevent warnings about the malodorous nature of this software being aired in any form and why its entry is being repeatedly and uncritically being whitewashed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vjosullivan (talk • contribs) 22:01, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Vjo - thanks for writing, and WP:Welcome to Wikipedia, where you've been editing for a number of years, and where we, by consensus, abide by the WP:Five Pillars of Wikipedia, including only using independent, verifiable, reliable sources for claims made in articles. What you call "whitewashing", we call, sticking with reliable independent published sources. Personal experience is WP:Original research and it simply isn't used at Wikipedia.

We are not at all determined to "prevent warnings", but we are very determined not to spread rumors, exaggerations, and falsehoods. Rest assured that if PC Magazine, Wired, or any other reputable outlet reports a problem with Blekko's searchbar, it will not be "whitewashed". It will not be written as a literal warning, because WP:NODISCLAIMER, but it will be reported as reported by the source.

Wikipedia is WP:NOT an advocacy outlet, or a blog, or a battleground, or a forum, or a tech support site, or anyone's mom, meaning we won't solve your problems for you. The WP:Talk page is for improving the article, not venting spleen. See, for instance, WP:TIGERS. Seriously.

We're all volunteers here. We do the things needed to build an encyclopedia, including reverting original research and unreliably sourced- and unsourced- claims.

To get some results, and legitimately help other users, perhaps write, politely, directly to Blekko - they invite you to do so, right there in their documentation, linked above. Detail what you downloaded, where you got it, what you did, what the installer did. Include screenshots, if needed. --Lexein (talk) 13:14, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, this is just plain ridiculous Lexein. Never ever again tell someone to contact (cyber-)criminals. What do you expect as a response: "Thanks for pointing out the error in our ways, we apologize and we will donate all the money we've earned with blekko to charity"? People make malware because it is profitable, and those who do usually either are dangerous or know people that are dangerous. This is not the 80's anymore. Arcandam (talk) 10:24, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

There is no extrapolation--the Blekko documentation explicitly states that by default it replaces your browsers' home page and search engine. That is precisely what many of us are trying to get into the document, and what Lexein appears hell-bent on keeping out. He is now branding such claims as "rumors, exaggerations, and falsehoods." Elsewhere, he calls these claims "debunked," as though the fact that PC Magazine has not written an article documenting Blekko's actions is proof that they are not taking them. The fact that Blekko's own website documents these actions ought to be all the proof Wikipedia requires. I am at a complete loss to understand why this is not obvious, and at how anyone can arrive at the conclusion that the Wikipedia Community's consensus is anything other than to include such information, and include it prominently. Since the 3rd-Party Editor was requested, we have heard from: Lexein (who believes this information should not be present); and from Boblo949, 163.166.8.13, Vjosullivan, and me (who all believe it should be present); Vadmium also commented, but the thrust of his comment strikes me as fairly neutral in this regard. It appears to me that the Wikipedia Community consensus, by a 4:1 ratio, is to include this information in the lead paragraph. Edmund Blackadder (talk) 07:23, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

@Edmund: Is it a good idea to submit the malware for analysis to a couple of antivirus companies? Arcandam (talk) 08:10, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Edmund, "Blekko offers a downloadable search bar which changes the user's web browser default search and homepage URLs." is currently in the article, that is all that can be in the article without further sources beyond those provided by the company. Anything more than this is going beyond what is written in the source. It could potentially be re-worded to "The Blekko downloadable search bar changes the user's browser default search and homepage URLs." If you can find a reliable source then it may be legitimately changed to something like "The Blekko downloadable search bar changes the user's browser default search and homepage URLs. Blekko has been criticised for this by {SOURCE} {quote from source}". --Mrmatiko (talk) 08:30, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

I have two issues with the current wording: first, it is buried--it appears as practically the last thing in the article, as the last feature (coming after such "features" as "cached pages" and "page length"; I have no idea what kind of a "feature" either of these are--it looks like someone took a laundry list from some Blekko marketing literature and cut-and-pasted it into the web page and then added this issue). I think there is very clear consensus that the fact that Blekko is quietly changing all your browsers' home pages and search engines belongs in the first paragraph (by 5:1 ratio now). Second, the phrasing does not convey to the users the importance of this point (in particular, it refers to "browser" in the singular and it uses the verb "offers" instead of "installs"). The wording makes this sound like an optional feature, but it's not. It is the default operation of the Blekko software. My edit of April 10 was to add: "Because Blekko installs itself as the home page and default search engine upon download for every browser on your system, without requesting permission or even notifying the user, many users view it itself as malware. The fact that it frequently gets downloaded without a user realizing that he has authorized it adds to the impression." I continue to believe that this conveys purely factual material, and is adequately sourced. Yes, it would be really nice if PC World would write an article about this, but they haven't, so I phrased it as an indirect statement (as per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources_and_undue_weight). If anything, I think that this phrasing is overly diffident. The Wikipedia Reliable Sources section, under the heading "Telling the Difference Between Facts and Opinions" writes "By 'fact' we mean 'a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute.'" From what I can tell, nobody is disputing the facts of this--the disagreements all revolve around what constitute adequate sourcing and where in the article the information belongs. I continue to believe that my text constitutes a reasonable compromise that ought to meet everyone's concerns. Edmund Blackadder (talk) 15:14, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm willing to place something along the lines of "The downloadable search bar provided by Blekko changes the user's browser default search and homepage URLs." in the lead. This would be sourced by: "Blekko.com Site". Retrieved 2012-04-10. The use of "installs itself" is questionable because it doesn't install itself when you use the search engine. The only time this appears to be true is when it comes bundled with other software.

I agree that the features section is terrible and needs to be trimmed and turned in to flowing prose. If I get time I may have a go at fixing it. --Mrmatiko (talk) 15:29, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

No, twice. No to Edmund's proposal, and no to adding details to the lead.

1. The searchbar is hardly the most important thing about Blekko, certainly not important enough to detail in the lead. The WP:LEAD is not the place for details: it is intended to summarize sections of the article which include the details.

2. The proposed 2-sentence proffer claims five facts not supported by the cited sources:

• "without requesting permission or even notifying the user"
• "frequently"
• "without a user realizing"
• "many users view it itself as malware"
• "adds to that impression"

These are not stated, implied, or supported by, the sources, and are unsupported by any reliable source. The sentences as written are WP:SYNTH, WP:POV, and are mostly non-WP:RS.

3. The blog source lays the blame on CNET's wrapper, not Blekko's installer. Therefore, we cannot lay the blame on Blekko, either, nor by manipulation of language, imply such blame. I don't know how I can make this any plainer.

4. WP:NODISCLAIMERS. Wikipedia does not warn readers of anything, beyond the standard disclaimer which exists at the bottom of every page of Wikipedia. Not content unsafe for work, nor software.

5. The voice of Wikipedia is not the editors - it is the sources, and the sources alone. Until an editor "gets" this, they will forever be unhappy and frustrated at Wikipedia. --Lexein (talk) 16:52, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

As we seem to have come up with a set of proposals, I think it may be time for a more formal request for comment. --Mrmatiko (talk) 17:24, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

RFC: Should a comment on the Blekko toolbar be in the lead section

There is a dispute over whether a comment about the Blekko toolbar changing certain browser settings should be placed in the lead section of the article. There are currently three proposals:

1. Leave the lead section as it is currently.
2. Replace the current phrasing with "The downloadable search bar provided by Blekko changes the user's browser default search and homepage URLs."
3. Replace the current phrasing with "Because Blekko installs itself as the home page and default search engine upon download for every browser on your system, without requesting permission or even notifying the user"Blekko.com Site". Retrieved 2012-04-10., many users view it itself as malware. The fact that it frequently gets downloaded without a user realizing that he has authorized it"Malware Removal Instructions". Retrieved 2012-04-10. adds to the impression."

Note: I've broken out the references provided to make it easier to see the sources being used--Mrmatiko (talk) 17:24, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

• Comment FWIW I don't see what the lede has to do with it. If it is something that you can say in the article at all, then say it where you like; lede, body, or both. Being mentioned by WP at all is dream advertising, so I am inclined to say that a neutral article would be too good for semi-malware. Nor do I accept that reporting on what the product does is necessarily OR. Quoting the content and output seems to me as good as any other ref. My instinct is to say please yourself as long as you keep it objectively verifiable. Of course, some wikilawyers might make a fuss, but the worst they can do is delete the stuff as long as you don't make a war of it. JonRichfield (talk) 20:30, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Option 3 misrepresents the ref, and adds OR. However it is on the right lines in my opinion Here's what the blekko site says "By default, downloading the blekko spam free search bar also changes your homepage and default search engine to blekko." That should be mentioned in the lede, IMO. It does not, in my opinion need any more scare tactics than that. Greglocock (talk) 03:21, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

It appears that you have asked the question "Should a comment on the Blekko toolbar be in the lead section" and then given three proposals, all of which are in the lead section. I reject all three. here are my opinions:

• No mention of any toolbar in the lead. This is a page about the search engine, not the toolbar.
• Give the toolbar its own section, near the top, not buried. Make sure every claim in that section has a citation to a RS. If you don't have a cite, leave it out. The reason you want it in its own section is so you can give lots of detailed and well-sourced information.
• If Blekko is an innocent victim of CNET / download.com like Nmap,[1] don't menton it at all. If a RS says that Blekko is paying CNET to make Blekko the payload, mention it prominently in the toolbar section.
• Be aware that there are a number of web pages that offer malware to "fix" the "Blekko Search Engine Hijacker", so make sure your sources are reliable and not derived from these scam sites.
• Finally, everyone here should face the fact that, given the disagreements here, everything you put in the article needs to be impeccably sourced. If someone says that something you added is not supported by a reliable source, the right answer is not to argue, even if you think you are right. The right answer is to make your sourcing so good that whenever someone says that everybody else tells them they are nuts. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:30, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

I see nothing in the title of the article that forbids mention of the toolbar as opposed to the search engine. Perhaps we need two articles, which seems a bit daft. I would have thoght that a separate section for the toolbar was sufficient, in which case a mention in the lede is also ok. Greglocock (talk) 08:56, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Whether you see it or not, this is a Wikipedia article about a search engine named Blekko.[2] As such the lead should describe a search engine named Blekko. Not the blekko Spam Free Search Bar, which belongs in a section of its own. --Guy Macon (talk) 10:02, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Um, sorry where do we then refer to other blekkos? If this is about the search engine and not the toolbar then the article needs to be called blekko (search engine). Since the two products are very closely related to the normal user I see no difficulty in putting them on the same article for the time being. Greglocock (talk) 06:17, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

For the time being we should just stick with something simple like Proposal 1 (minimal mention of browser searchbar tacked onto end of lead), and write whatever else is appropriate about the toolbar or search bar further down in the article. I am also happy for it to be left out of the lead entirely. If more is added to the body, then consider revising the lead.

 Some of Guy’s comments above seem to be contradicting themselves and confuse me. I think the article can include many things related to Blekko the search engine, company, or web site, including this toolbar, and the lead should summarise the main points of the article. Vadmium (talk, contribs) 03:41, 7 June 2012 (UTC).

I Tentatively Support the inclusion of a reference to more malware-esque behaviour of the toolbar in the lead section, but only if a more appropriate source can be located. If the toolbar is becoming noteworthy as a backdoor for malicious or just undesired software and system changes, that's entirely germaine information, regardless of whether or not article originally concerned itself more with the stand-alone iteration of the search engine. The toolbar variant is mentioned in the lead, and I see no reason why that information cannot be qualified with a note about such behaviour, again, assuming an appropriate source (ideally an industry article). Information ought to be prioritized according to it's relevance and usefulness to the typical reader and I have a hard time conceiving of an argument against malware-like behaviour not qualifying as some of the most significant information the average user of this article would like to see up front. Snow (talk) 20:28, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

• Comment probably the best way to resolve the immediate question is to remove mention of the search bar from the lead. If the search bar is deemed integral to bleeko, it should have its own section in the body, not just a bullet point in the feature list. Once or if the article is expanded in this way, it would then make sense to add a search bar mention to the lead. The exact nature of that mention would be a NPOV summary of the new section. --Kvng (talk) 20:47, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Toolbar license agreement

The toolbar does do more than simply change the default search and homepage. It changes the DNS error page, the 404 error page, new tab and address bar search functionality. It communicates usage information. It collects your IP address. We have a source for that per WP:ABOUTSELF; the License agreement that is included in the installer. Arcandam (talk) 09:26, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

The fun part is that the license agreement mentions that decompiling the toolbar is illegal, so I hope I will be sued soon. Arcandam (talk) 09:27, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

It does a lot more than simply changing the default search and homepage. For example it installs tons of crapware, including a couple of files for MyStartFacebook. The fun part is that My Start is actually another search engine, based on Yahoo's technology. Interesting... Arcandam (talk) 10:09, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

It also installs files to promote vmn.net, yet another search engine based on Yahoo's technology (comparable to GCSE). WTF? Why is blekko actively promoting different searchengines? Arcandam (talk) 10:44, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

This is sounding promising. Are you talking about the “Blekko toolbar” linked from https://blekko.com/about/blekkogear? Or the “Spam free search bar” mentioned in Edmund’s help links; or are they the same thing? Vadmium (talk, contribs) 11:19, 4 June 2012 (UTC).

What I did was the following:

• I booted a Virtual PC image I had prepared earlier with XP SP2.
• I downloaded and started Process Monitor
• I downloaded the toolbar from blekko.com/toolbar (this is intentionally not a link). I found that page by looking at the bottom of blekko.com. I suspect that spam free search bar is exactly the same thing since blekko claims to try to be spam free (of course they fail in their attempt)
• I ran the setup, copy pasted the license agreement into Notepad++, and agreed to the license agreement.

To be completely clear here is some of the information contained in the installer: http://pastebin.com/z2MFCRVg

Disclaimer: pissing cybercriminals off is potentially dangerous. Don't do it. And decompiling this thing is forbidden according to the license agreement. Arcandam (talk) 11:30, 4 June 2012 (UTC) p.s. I have just submitted this file for analysis to most major antiviruscompanies.

Looks like it is the same installer that I was looking at. I had hoped the agreement would be easy to find in the file (using Seven-zip or similar) but not so. I can see it by running the installer under Wine, and it does indicate the things you mentioned in the first paragraph. However I think decompiling and analysing with Process Monitor would be straying a bit too far into original-research territory. Vadmium (talk, contribs) 12:42, 4 June 2012 (UTC).

Yes, I am doing a bit of original research on the side, I like that kinda stuff. For instance I just discovered they were trying to steal my browserhistory (which is pointless because it is a sandbox). But to see the license agreement you don't need to do any original research, just run the installer and you'll see it. If someone does not want to infect his/her computer but does want to read the license agreement I can email it to that person, the text is probably copyrighted so I am not going to copypaste it here. Arcandam (talk) 12:48, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

By now I have collected so much WP:OR that I should probably start a webpage about blekko. I probably need to do a lot more research if I want to discover what they are up to. This is pretty strange behaviour for a search engine toolbar, and they are also doing some weird SEO stuff. Arcandam (talk) 13:36, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

References

Other stuff

To answer the previous question what exactly are we talking about here, start here, at blekko: https://blekko.com/toolbar

• The 2.4MB toolbar installer is at http www.toolbarstart.com/blekkotb_017/productions/blekkotb_017.exe . It is also offered in CNET's download bundler, as reported here, but that's another matter.
• Backtracking up the URL, the separate 2MB browser plugin is at http://www.toolbarstart.com/blekkotb_017/ (not sure if this is actually the latest one).

ToolbarStart.com, and both tools, are published by a third party, http://DynamicToolbar.com, operated by Visicom Media. DT allows developers to quickly compose toolbars and plugins. DT publishes bars for several customers, some quite large: http://dynamictoolbar.com/showcase/

Yes, the toolbar can include 404 catching, as evidenced here: http://dynamictoolbar.com/benefits/revenue-generation.php

This suggests that the "problems" reported with the toolbar are not unique to Blekko, but are endemic to toolbars produced by users of the DTS toolbar construction set. A quick search reveals lots of complaints about lots of downloaded toolbars and searchbars having nothing to do with Blekko.

Oh, and don't forget the opt-in page which indeed has 2 of 3 checkboxes checked, but it's the user who clicks "Accept" (see) - at least for the bundled installer used by CNET.

--Lexein (talk) 14:21, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

That toolbars and other browserplugins are frequently used for malware/spyware purposes should be a well-known fact by now. But that doesn't mean we should censor information from a reliable source. Arcandam (talk) 16:13, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Which reliable source? If you have actually found a reliable source then we may be able to instantly solve this dispute. --Mrmatiko (talk) 16:47, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

I did find a source that is reliable enough to be used (per WP:ABOUTSELF); the license agreement of the toolbar. Of course we cannot say it is malware without a reliable source (even though I am pretty sure it is), but we can repeat the claims made in the license agreement (The toolbar does more than simply change the default search and homepage. It changes the DNS error page, the 404 error page, new tab and address bar search functionality. It communicates usage information. It collects your IP address.). Arcandam (talk) 19:55, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

• Comment You know, I find it interesting that exactly none of the extensive controvery in the present discussion regarding the advisability of using Blekko has made it into or is even reflected in the entry itself. If one were to read the Wikipedia article on Blekko alone and without any actual experience with the software, one would come away with the idea that it is simply another uncontroversial, mundane, indie search engine in the shadow of Google. If, for example, someone were considering whether to allow an organization like CNET, etc. to install Blekko on his own computer and turned to Wikipedia for guidance, would he have any idea of the sorts of concerns raised in this discussion--concerns regarding ease of uninstallation, evidence of redirection and information storage, etc.? Shouldn't he, if he's to make an informed choice? Whatever anyone thinks about Blekko, he must admit that it is not just another search engine and that it includes some rather unique features, features which not every user may find so useful or desirable. This discussion page itself makes that much clear.

• Since we know from the present discussion that a number of people have had significant difficulty with Blekko and a decidedly negative experience, why not reference this page itself as evidence of Blekko's controversial nature? I'm afraid that otherwise, this entry might lead a hapless reader to an incomplete understanding of Blekko and an ill-informed choice. I urge the editors here to amend the entry and add something regarding the controversy to the lede paragraph. At the very least, they might make a sub-entry entitled "Controversy" for example, in which they could cite this discussion page as evidence. In some way, either through a comment in the lede or a later sub-entry, an acknowledgement of the present controversy should be made. We are, after all, quite real, and Blekko is obviously quite controversial. Special:Contributions/70.60.1.35|70.60.1.35]] (talk) 23:35, 3 July 2012 (UTC)Rich Bartholomew

• Nope. That would be original research. --Kvng (talk) 00:26, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

• Unfortunately, regardless of how useful the information is, policy does not allow us to add claims (or even proven empirical facts) without appropriate sources (for which this page does not qualify). As I noted some weeks back, I'm all for adding reference to malware-like behaviors, including featuring it prominently in the lead, if the appropriate citations can be located - it's clearly pertinent information and very much the kind of thing a Wikipedia user would likely wish to know if researching the software here. However, Wikipedia has very scrupulous standards on what constitutes an appropriate source, and our opining on a talk page falls short of that mark by miles -- though I appreciate and applaud the efforts of those who have investigated the issues here to help us gain clarity on the issue I was we work on the content. Snow (talk) 01:44, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

• Huh. Well I guess this incident demonstrates why that policy has serious short-comings, doesn't it? 70.60.1.35 (talk) 10:26, 5 July 2012 (UTC)Rich Bartholomew

No, because this is an encyclopedia, with encyclopedic standards at its core. To understand Wikipedia better, and to understand why that policy is not a shortcoming, but a core value, please read WP:Five pillars, WP:Reliable sources, and WP:Verifiability. IMHO, researching a controversial topic is part and parcel of a Wikipedia editor's job, and it is unfortunately frequently frustrating, when reliable sources can't be found. I can only state that patience is a virtue: it takes time for sources a) to be published and b) to be found. Some incidents or events never rise to the level of WP:Notability (for creating articles) or WP:Verifiability (for items within articles). --Lexein (talk) 17:09, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

This policy may entail complications, but is essential to the functioning of the project as a relevant and useful source of information. As Lexein has already stated, these policies may make for constant challenges and occasionally even outright roadblocks to important information, but the alternative (throwing notability and verifiability out the window) would quickly turn Wikipedia into an indiscriminate collection of every vanity project and dubious claim that a single user can dream up. We avoid this by taking the determination of what it important or accurate information out of our own hands, insofar as this is possible, and present only those details which appropriate sources have confirmed (and where the details of multiple sources conflict, we try to balance our presentation of those perspectives). This is the what our collective community consensus has arrived at as an appropriate approach for an encyclopedia. Snow (talk) 22:29, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Verifiable toolbar facts

The way I see it, these are the facts reliably supported by sources given above:

• Blekko advertises a browser toolbar, licensed by Visicom Media [licence agreement]
• Known as the “Blekko Search Bar” [licence agreement] and perhaps “Spam Free Search Bar”
• With Firefox, Internet Explorer and Chrome it may change those browsers’ home page or startup page and search settings. [Edmund’s help links, licence agreement]
• The installer also changes browser error pages, a new tab setting, and collects IP addresses to determine locations [licence agreement]

I suggest some of this could be added to the article; perhaps it might be enough to resolve any disputes? Vadmium (talk, contribs) 05:00, 7 June 2012 (UTC).

1. Slight correction: "changes browser error pages" - it would be more correct to state that it intercepts and changes those pages, since the searchbar seems to set itself up as a proxy.
2. From a policy standpoint, I would have no problem citing the license agreement (as in the first, third, and fourth items above) if it has been published as described in WP:V. That is, published in a way which does not require the (allegedly risky) execution of the software's installer to verify it. Surely one of the principals (Blekko, Visicom) has published the license agreement somewhere. Of course, Wikipedia still prefers independent sourcing of facts, instead of relying on primary sources, but this is not news.
3. And here's the text of the license agreement http://pastebin.com/gDgidJ5P . Let the heavens fall. --Lexein (talk) 09:39, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Nah let them stay up, please. (2) Before you accept the license agreement the installer doesn't really do much as far as I can tell, so that won't be a problem. After you accept the license agreement and press OK it starts doing stuff. As far as I can tell it is safe to run the installer, read the license agreement, and cancel the setup. Disclaimer: I have not read every single line of code. Arcandam (talk) 07:50, 9 June 2012 (UTC) p.s. We may want to mention that it communicates usage information to Visicom Media Inc. p.p.s WP:V defines being published as being "made available to the public in some form" and states that: "The principle of verifiability implies nothing about ease of access to sources".

trojan-removal-tool.com

I reverted Beauhanks because this is a very very unreliable source. Arcandam (talk) 16:13, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Concur. --Lexein (talk) 17:17, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Hang on, what's the issue ?

There seems to be an undercurrent here of people who think that this article should present some PR friendly version of Blekko the search engine, who are prepared to ignore the fact that a common install using this, with the toolbar, does some pretty evil things to your PC. Since the article is called 'Blekko', not 'Blekko (search engine)', then mentioning the facts that Blekko toolbar's own faq states about its behaviour are neither off topic, nor are they non RS. So, in my opinion either split the article into two, so that you can have a 'Blekko (search engine)' page, where all is wonderful, and a 'Blekko (toolbar)' page where its FAQ is quoted, or else accept that the 'Blekko' article has to cover both the search engine, and the toolbar, and so the toolbar's faq is a relevant source. Greglocock (talk) 02:47, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

I think most people who have commented are actually of a mind to include content on both the search engine and toolbar as well as mention of undesired changes to the user's system -- even in the lead. Right now the issue is with insufficient sourcing; as you say, the official FAQ is probably a decent source for some of this info, but not sufficient for all claims. If you, or anyone, can remedy these shortfalls, I would put the content in myself. Snow (talk) 02:57, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Concur. No problem reporting here what independent reliable sources say about the toolbar. It's just that nobody notable has said one thing about it, as explained previously, so we're stuck, saying as much as sources give us. I do not think a whole section should be sourced by a single primary source (the FAQ)- that is also "PR-friendly", since it provides no independent verification of the facts claimed.

Greglocock: Stop attacking editors, and read WP:CIVIL and WP:TIGERS. The sentence "There seems to be an undercurrent..." is inappropriate, is an attack, includes further falsehoods about editors and what they have written, and therefore it has no place here, regardless of the protective rhetorical cover of "seems." The talk page is not about editors, it is about the article. If you really think there's a problem, WP:SOFIXIT. --Lexein (talk) 10:30, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

How to get WP:RS for the malware criticism

Those editors who want a reliable source for the malware claim should probably send tips about this to IT news sources. Don't bother with pro-corporate mainstream media such as CNET but try with anti-establishment tech-politics sources such as BoingBoing, Techdirt, The Register, Huffington Post, EFF and possibly Techcrunch. I also suspect that editors with an open pro BLEKKO POV have a conflict of interest and should therefore not be allowed to edit this article. MaxPont (talk) 10:12, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Read WP:POV in re "not allowed to edit." If you think any particular editor has a conflict of interest and has made edits against policy, escalate immediately at WP:COIN or WP:ANI. The refusal to allow a neutral article (this one) to become a bully pulpit for unsourced and verifiably false statements does not constitute any sort of pro-Blekko POV. I doubt that it is appropriate for involved editors to WP:CANVAS or lobby potential sources. --Lexein (talk) 23:13, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

This is off topic but if people working for Blekko (and possibly CNET) are here: this will explode in your face in a way you can't even imagine. If you want to avoid a huge media scandal I would recommend that you come clean and apologize perfusely, and at least fire a senior vice president. MaxPont (talk) 14:50, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

WP:COI is the guideline, and it does not agree with your assertions. I'm recommending WP:TIGERS and WP:CIVIL again. Read 'em, because the above statements are rather empty threats, best not made. On the other hand, please escalate at WP:COIN, WP:ANI, or WP:SPI if you suspect any editor COI or other misbehavior. --Lexein (talk) 16:48, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Scanning reports

July 2012

At Google Safe Browsing, for four websources of the Blekko toolbar, all four reports stated: "0 page(s) resulted in malicious software being downloaded and installed without user consent."

dynamictoolbar.com GSB: (webcite) - 0 malware in the last 90 days

toolbarstart.com GSB: (webcite) - 4 trojans in the last 90 days.

download.cnet.com GSB: (webcite) - 6 trojan(s), 1 virus, 1 exploit(s) in the last 90 days.

blekko.com GSB: (webcite ) - 0 malware in the last 90 days.

I doubt Google would hide malware reports, if it found any at blekko.com. I also submitted the current blekkoctb.exe (directly from blekko.com) to virustotal.com, which reported 0 malware detected, from their 42 malware scanners. VirusTotal reports it was signed at 3:08 AM 6/29/2012. Under the Additional information tab:

• Symantec sez: this program does not have a significant reputation yet among virus vendors, so it's considered "very low" risk.
• ClamAV sez: PUA - potential unwanted application, without saying specifically why. (Well, IMHO, it's due to the packers)

--Lexein (talk) 17:07, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

April 2013

VirusTotal

Again scanned the toolbar blekkoctb.exe (directly from blekko.com) using VirusTotal (WebCite)and now two scanners return results on 2013-04-07 16:03:06 UTC:

• Symantec: WS.Reputation.1
• TrendMicro-HouseCall: TROJ_GEN.F47V0820 (but not the TrendMicro mainline product, and, checking TrendMicro's TROJ_GEN.F47V0820 page on that detection shows (in the Antivirus section) that other vendors should have shown the same thing. They didn't, so it's a false positive.)

Under the Additional information tab:

• Symantec "Suspicious.Insight" sez: "low" risk. (Wild Level: Low, Number of Infections: 0 - 49, Number of Sites: 0 - 2, Geographical Distribution: Low, Threat Containment: Easy, Removal: Easy, Damage Level: Low, Distribution Level: Low)
• ClamAV still sez: PUA (as in 2012)

Threat Expert

I submitted the above executable to ThreatExpert Submit a sample and received a report indicating no problems. --Lexein (talk) 06:37, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Revert

I reverted the ==Controversy== section. The deletemalware.blogspot.com BLOG source isn't a reliable source - it's a blog (one strike) by an (as yet) non-notable author (two strikes), which hasn't been publicly acknowledged by any other RS (three strikes). Please find evidence of notability of author, such as being cited by other RS, or bona fides, or book authorship, etc. We've been over this. We're waiting for any media or antivirus or antimalware vendor to pick up on the CNET/toolbar/hard to remove story. Apparently nobody agrees with deletemalware.blogspot.com. And come on, not even deletemalware called this a "Controversy" - that's entirely undue weight by the adding editor. --Lexein (talk) 01:44, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

And I don't WP:OWN the article - I'm not reverting things out of spite, or protecting Blekko, or alienating bloggers, or any other bad reason. In fact, I'm protecting Wikipedia from publishing unsourced and badly sourced, highly controversial claims. Can I get even a half-hearted "fine."?--Lexein (talk) 07:44, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Odd unsourced Ben Sykes quote

"Ben Sykes a known SEO specialist was one of the first to sign up to use Blekko's domain back link checker and wrote on 15th August 2012 "Blekko has replaced Yahoo as the domainers' choice for universal domain SEO" and stands by Vanilla Circus' £1000 + annual spend with Blekko. whilst he appreciates that Blekko may have declared all search data to be free, they are a business the same as any other and revenue streams such as this are important to maximise."

Plausible, badly written, couldn't find a source. "Wrote on 15th August" where? Couldn't find it. Discuss? --Lexein (talk) 04:41, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Blekko/blekko

The article says that the company name is trademarked blekko, yet in most of the article it is spelled Blekko. Should Blekko be changed to blekko? JitteryOwl (talk) 21:20, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Not a bad point, but Wikipedia isn't a brochure by Blekko or its advertising agency, or a press release. Our manual of style WP:MOS requires the use of company names to be, with few exceptions, "plain English", capitalized as proper nouns, and capitalization at the starts of sentences, without other decoration or stylization. This matches various other well-known style guides. Mentioning the special use in the lead sentence and the infobox (including the logo) is enough. Also, quite a lot of Blekko's own publicity and filings use the "normal" capitalization in body text, rather than the lowercase. --Lexein (talk) 22:09, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Unreliable sources

• As far as I can tell, http://2-viruses.com is not a reliable source, written by unknown authors. They've only been quoted once, in 2005. The claims against Blekko are extraordinary, and have to be supported in substantial sources. --Lexein (talk) 16:09, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

What makes the authors known? Tinynanorobots (talk) 01:59, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Per WP:RS, an author can be considered authoritative if they have become well-known in their field by publishing works which have been quoted or cited by others, in journals or books. Some blog authors have become considered to be reliable sources, after their work was quoted or cited in news and/or academic publications. (Of course, trust is fragile and can be revoked: Jonah Lehrer [3][4] in 2012, Michelle Delio[5] in 2005, and Stephen Glass (reporter) in 1989-90.) --Lexein (talk) 02:58, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

• Another unreliable: http://im-infected.com (re Blekko here) - written by an anonymous author. The Blekko page refers only to reports from users (not RS), and actually states that uninstalling the search bar to be rather simple. The site im-infected.com was cited only once in 2009, and not about Blekko. --Lexein (talk) 03:40, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

• Another unreliable: http://malwaretips.com (re Blekko here) - as added to the article here. Malwaretips has no news presence, and has not been mentioned in books, or scholarly articles, and the same goes for the author. The Blekko page at Malwaretips positively asserts that it's a "browser hijack", when in fact it is downloadable by users directly from Blekko, and does not install unless approved by the user. Its use as a "hijack", and claimed bypass of approval checkboxes, has nothing to do with Blekko, as discussed ad nauseum above. --Lexein (talk) 20:20, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Interest in installers and PUP (potentially unwanted programs) has increased in the press

• "How Java dumps useless add ons and toolbars on PC users". Ars Technica.
• "A close look at how Oracle installs deceptive software with Java updates". ZDNet.

We may have our sources discussing installers and toolbars such as those used by Blekko any day now... --Lexein (talk) 19:31, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Renewed interest in the toolbar

Please see prior discussions about claims about the Blekko Toolbar, and our inability (so far) to find any reliable published sources (news, magazine, book, or notable author blog) to support those claims ("virus", "malware", "self-installing", "hard to remove", etc). Blekko installers (directly from Blekko.com), showed no problems at VirusTotal.com. So:

1. People should be obsessively careful when installing bundles from shareware sites. Basically, don't. Some shareware sites bundle their own installers, or pre-check opt-in checkboxes, or perform silent installs.
2. People should really watch those opt-in checkboxes which might be pre-checked. Uncheck them. --Lexein (talk) 00:33, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

"Criticism" moved here for discussion

==Criticism==

As of 28 of May 2013, the site now requires some combination of cookies and JavaScript, so that without them the site will not operate correctly; hence more private information might be gathered. Note that Google is still operational without cookies or JavaScript.

One can use the following URL to get the old non-javascript behavior:

https://edit.blekko.com/ws/?q=foobar

This doesn't seem to be mentioned in any RS. It can certainly go in when it's written about in reliable sources. --Lexein (talk) 16:40, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Blekko competition

I think there are a few competitors to the blekko initiative. Besides the obvious google, bing and ask there are other such 'undergraound' search-engines sites to name a few: findthebest.com, wolfarmalpha, shadow.com, duckduckgo, topix,... and a nice table comparing the different approaches would have been of great value to the readers. I would have made such a table myself, but I'm not sure the moderators of this page would add it and I'd hate to throw away as this is not a small effort. Perhaps the right thing to do is open a new wiki page for 'underground' or 'experimental' search engines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elimash (talk • contribs) 07:29, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Blekko. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121107201910/http://help.blekko.com/index.php/what-is-blekko/ to http://help.blekko.com/index.php/what-is-blekko/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110309090030/http://blog.blekko.com:80/ to http://blog.blekko.com/

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) 04:10, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Blekko. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120420214739/http://help.blekko.com/index.php/i-downloaded-the-toolbar-and-some-settings-changed-on-my-ie-browser-how-do-i-change-them-back/ to http://help.blekko.com/index.php/i-downloaded-the-toolbar-and-some-settings-changed-on-my-ie-browser-how-do-i-change-them-back/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://blog.blekko.com/

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) 20:51, 21 July 2017 (UTC)