Talk:Softpedia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Computing / Software (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Software (marked as Mid-importance).
 
WikiProject Websites / Computing  (Rated Start-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is part of WikiProject Websites, an attempt to create and link together articles about the major websites on the web. To participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Computing (marked as Low-importance).
 
WikiProject Internet (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the internet on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Heading[edit]

I found this page, which appears to have been little more than an advertisement for the site in question, maintained by one user. I eliminated a lot of inappropriate detail and extra screenshots, and tried to cut the article down to something comparable to other articles about websites.

-ridiculous fish

Cableguy, you have reverted the page several times to your version. The level of detail is inappropriate - how many other articles about web sites have a screenshot of the feedback form? The use of adjectives like "renowned" and "highly respected" make the article read as if it's a press release for the website, especially because there are no references. In fact, further in the article, you seem to confuse Wikipedia with the Softpedia site itself - you refer to it as "our site" and the administrators as "we." This is self-aggrandizing and has no place here.


To RF:[edit]

You are removing way too much content.

As I have stated in the changes...talk to the SP admins. ALL the information in the page is 100% accurate and factual. The only information which is based off my own research is the section containing the major dates...however, those dates are accurate as well if you actully were to contact the SP admins and ask them.

"Accurate and factual" is not an important criterion. Please read Wikipedia:Verifiability: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." For example, a statement like "Softpedia is best known for doing thorough testing of each software product and game they list" needs to be verified with an independent reference. If it were instead written as "Softpedia markets itself as thoroughly testing each software product and game they list," then that could be verified from the site itself, and is appropriate. Ridiculous fish 23:13, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Talk to the SP admins if you so desire. They have verified the work I put into the page.

This article was not meant to be an advertisement. A lot of the information on the page is copied from the website,

Information taken verbatim from the Softpedia site must be quoted and marked as such; otherwise it is a copyright violation and likely non-NPOV. See Wikipedia:Copyright_FAQ Ridiculous fish 23:13, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
  • If this was my thesis project I would put in that effort. This is wikipedia, not Encyclopedia Britannica...ha ha.
You're right -- we try to make Wikipedia better than Encyclopedia Britannica. Sugarbat (talk) 21:48, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

so when there are "we"'s it is due to the SOURCE having "we"'s. Instead of being a nice, genuine wikipedia user and taken the time to edit these little "problems" as you see fit, you have gone a different route and removed way too much content that I, and the SP admins, as well as other SP users, find is relavant about the site.

All the information is relevant to the site, in the sense that it refers to the site. But see Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information, and compare to articles about other websites. There is far more information than is appropriate to an article about a web page; compare to articles about other notable web pages. Ridiculous fish 23:13, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
  • What difference does it make if there is more content that another page? It just means the editors to the page are more deveoted to providing more wealth of information about the site. All sites are unique...and while website pages are same in their intents the readers/editors are certainly not the same. I dont think there are any RULES on how long a page can be, anyway.

There have been probably a few hundred users to this article and none of them seem to have a problem with the page...you just happen to be the first... Who says that there is "too much" content for an item?

I do, based on the examples set by other articles and Wikipedia's policies. For example, see EBay, Yahoo!, Amazon.com. Each of these sites contains one screenshot. The information in an article should be notable; a screenshot of the "Contact Us" form doesn't meet that criteria. Ridiculous fish 23:13, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
I just have to point out that information in articles doesn't have to be notable. The notability guideline, Wikipedia:Notability, explains that only the topics of pages have to be notable. It's an easy mistake to make; I believe Wikipedia's concept of notability and its purpose is not very well understood, possibly because it is not very well represented. -- BenBildstein 02:48, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
  • When was there a limit on screenshots? I agree that some of them were redundant...the admins liked them so I kept them.

If the Softpedia admins felt that there was too much information disclosed about the site, then it would be removed.

The Softpedia admins are not the arbiters of this page; in fact, they should not even be the principal maintainers. See Wikipedia:Vanity guidelines. Ridiculous fish 23:13, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
  • True, but if they felt too much information is disclosed then they would feel free to remove it regardless. There is no limit on information and I've never heard of guidelines on page length.

If other general users (unlike yourself) felt there was too much jargon about the website they would SELECTIVELY remove it as they see fit.

Wikipedia encourages users to Wikipedia:Be bold in updating pages, not merely minor changes. I made a large change because I felt the article warranted it, but as you can see, I was selective in what I kept. I am not sure why you think I am not a "general user" of Wikipedia. Ridiculous fish 23:13, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
  • There are general users who make little additions (or removals) here and there as they see fit, then there are others, like yourself, who take things a little too seriously. You aren't getting paid for your work here. If you are going to make such major removals at least do one removal at a time with reasons. Making one big removal (like you did) with a dumb reason like "content reduction" will provoke discussions like this one.

You need to stop acting like everyone on the web is a technical user, accept the fact that most people aren't technical and information like that provided in this article is gladly accepted as everybody knows that no one reads the FAQ's on a webpage.

Wikipedia articles should not attempt to teach users how to use a website. See Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information - Wikipedia is not an instruction manual. Ridiculous fish 23:13, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
  • And why should it not? An encyclopedia is meant to educate readers...what is wrong with educating a user on how to use a website? If I made an article about this webpage that had this MacOSX interface (I can't recall the webpage...sorry) on information about the site as well as how to use it, what is wrong with that? Users like my mom, for example, would have no idea about how to use it...and there is no documentation anywhere as far as I know. As I said, how many people do you know read the FAQ to a website? Seriously.
Unsigned guy: What RF means is that a Wikipedia article about a particular website isn't, strictly speaking, intended as a user's guide for that website. An article about Google, for example, would talk about Google's purpose as an online search engine, and might go into a bit of detail about what a "search engine" is, but would not provide step-by-step instructions about how to use Google.
The information I expect to see here, with regard to Softpedia, is:
1. What it is (a website)
2. What it's for (software downloads)
3. Whether there's anything specific/important about it, in addition to the above (i.e., is it generally thought to be a good/okay/notorious resource? etc.)
A screenshot of the index page is nice (in my opinion), but it's not necessary. Usually, though, I think it makes sense, for space conservation and for reduction of clutter/distraction, to just include a graphic of the website (or company) logo. In general, I see no reason why, in a general article about any website, a screenshot of any other page than the index page would be necessary to include. Sugarbat (talk) 21:30, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

If you wish for me to go through and remove certain bits of information that you, specifically, do not find NPOV, then I will do that. However I completely object to removing factual information about the site that would otherwise help uninformed users in learning about the site.

A Wikipedia article should inform about the site, but not be a primary resource for learning how to use it. "The Navigation Menu is located in the header and is composed of six buttons" reads like a manual for the website, and is not appropriate for an encyclopedia article about the site. Ridiculous fish 23:13, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
  • As I have asked you before, if you find material as being improper, then remove it with a reason. Removing a bunch of stuff all in one shot with a rather general reason will provoke this kind of discussion.

You seem to be the only one who actually cares about the content in the screenshots.

Please compare to other articles on web sites, such as EBay, Yahoo!, Amazon.com, and model the inclusion of the screenshots after those articles. A screenshot of the feedback form adds clutter without making this article more useful. Ridiculous fish 23:13, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry if I'm not a web coder. I try my best to mimic the ways people edit their pages...and I do agree the way I implemented the screenshots was rather poor, but I, the admins, and other general softpedia users enjoyed the page as a whole (including the screenshot).

I take it you aren't a software developer. I think that software developers will find the screenshot of the "submit software form" very helpful...Software websites aren't ONLY for download junkies.

I am, in fact, a professional software developer, but I do not see how that screenshot adds notable information. Ridiculous fish 23:13, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Depends on who you talk to (as to seeing who finds that screenshot useful).
  • Wikipedia is NOT a how to manual. Your argument of "helpful" infers it was aimed at process or procedural steps. Please stick to the style guidelines. Stephen Charles Thompson (talk) 06:13, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

BTW: I am the only one who edits the page because no one else decided to undertake editing the stub besides myself. Hey Im sorry if this page isn't as highly trafficed as your Army pages are.

I also have decided to undertake editing this page, in hopes of making it more useful. I am not sure which "Army pages" you're referring to? Ridiculous fish 23:13, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Sorry, I must have had the other guy's pages. Swatjester's page. He is the army buff or something.


-CableguyTK

re[edit]

I have spent a lot of time working this article over in an attempt to glean out the notable information (what Softpedia does) from the not notable (how many buttons are on its navigation menu). Here is my detailed discussion of the changes I made and why I believe the changes were warranted. There is also a lot of grammar and spelling fixes - please do not simply revert to the old version, because they will lose these sorts of changes.


Company profile

I have removed the "N/A" information - if it's not applicable, there's no reason to have it be there.

  • fair enough. that was information I did not know if SP wanted me listing so I left it N/A in the hopes they would fill in what they felt completing.

Introduction

"Softpedia is best known for doing thorough testing of each software product and game they list, providing high quality, home made screenshots for each program as well as checking each one for any evidence of viruses, malware, adware or spyware using a variety of well know antivirus and antispyware products. "

This paragraph is what Softpedia claims to do, but these are unverified; without a reference this must be weakened to "Softpedia says..."

  • Fair enough

"Providing high quality home made screenshots for each program" is demonstrably false. See, for example, http://mac.softpedia.com/get/Developer-Tools/KFDecorator.shtml

  • Check the news section. They only started providing home made screenshots recently so there remains listed softwares which need updating. But their new company policy is providing home made screenshots for everything that is able to be screencapped.

"well known antivirus and antispyware products" requires a reference; I removed the "well known" bit.

  • Fair enough.

"Programs which are free of any viruses, malware, adware and spyware are given the highly respected 100% Clean award, with those programs which are free at the same time being given the 100% Free award."

This should read "programs that Softpedia finds free of viruses..." The "highly respected," without a reference, is editorializing.

  • Fair enough.

Screenshots

I think that the first screenshot, showing the main page, is good because it also shows some listings and gives a sense of the site. Separate screenshots of listings of specific categories are redundant. The screenshots showing the "Software Submit" form and "Feedback" form can be cut; most articles about web pages include only one screenshot.

  • Fair enough.

Site Sections

Most of the discussion of the "Sections" are the same with "Linux" or "Macintosh" replaced with Windows; this can be condensed into a few sentences, at which point it no longer warrants a separate category. Condensed and moved to the previous section.

  • While I see your point, I think its fine the way it is since the other 3 or so sections are listed off the way it is now.

Category structure

This appears to have been copied verbatim from the Softpedia help. As such, it is a copyright violation, and in any case, the Wikipedia article should not be replacing the site's own help. This can be summed up in a single phrase, "in hierarchial categories," which I added to the above section.

  • Softpedia admins had no problems with it. If Im not wrong one should usually take this up with the copyright holder and have him/her be the judge. And in this case they wouldn't have a problem as they know it has been used. But whatever, I won't object to removing something which is already available in the help on their site.

Membership system

This is also copied verbatim from the site's own help. I summed this up with the sentence "Registered users can post comments about the software or news articles."

  • Same comments about the copyrights. But that is fine what you did.

Features available to all users

I consider the software poll and ratings to be notable enough to add to the above section. The "read user reviews" is redundant - if users can post reviews, they can obviously be read. The "report broken link" isn't notable; "report spyware" is notable for being part of the mechanism that Softpedia uses to detect spyware, and therefore belongs in the discussion of how Softpedia attempts to detect spyware. The "Klip farm" isn't notable. "Unlimited free downloads" can be rolled into the discussion of what users can do. "Viewing of screenshots" is implied by the fact that Softpedia provides screenshots, but I added "free screenshots" to make that clear.

  • I have no objections.

Features available to registered users A brief mention of the discussion board is warranted; I added "Users...can discuss software." Reviews have already been mentioned; the "download basket" isn't notable. "Post opinion" is the same as reviews. "Subscribe" is notable, and I added a line about it above: "and receive e-mails when their favorite software is updated."

  • I have no objections.

Submitting software to Softpedia This section is essentially "How to use this site," which isn't appropriate. A discussion of how Softpedia finds the software it lists would be useful, but I am not prepared to write that now.

  • No objections.
  • I will work on that information.

Awards given by Softpedia Softpedia Users' Choice award winners

I consider these two sections to be good as written.


History of major changes I consider a lot of these "major changes" to not be notable - some of them are as minor as "Softpedia added a link," and it's not the role of Wikipedia to categorize every time any web page adds a link. But I am leaving this alone for now.

  • All of this information I have compiled and Softpedia admins confirm this to be accurate. I find it valuable. An encyclopedia is also meant to be used as learning about history. I think it is good to have a history about a particular thing, whether it be a major war or just a general website. Hell, I would like to know when Google came out of beta...but we dont have that information now do we?

However, if you feel multiple entries for the same month should be consolidated into one entry for that month then change it as you see fit.


Miscellaneous information The note about hotlinking is only a technical detail and not notable. The "Anybody can submit software" line should not give detailed instructions for submitting software, but I would like to see a discussion of how Softpedia obtains its software in another section. The "Free of charge" is discussed above - "Users can freely download..." So this section can be removed.

Navigation and search This section is copied verbatim from an older revision of Softpedia, and is therefore a copyright violation. I do not think a discussion of the number of buttons in the navigation menu warrants being included in an encyclopedia article about the site, unless the navigation is unusual in some way. I removed this section for the copyright violation and for notability.

  • The majority of the stuff in that section I agree can be removed as it was straight from the website, however I think that random tidbits of information (that would otherwise be unable to fall under any major category) is always a good thing to have about any article.

Reporting broken links I don't consider the ability to report broken links notable.

  • Eh...

Softpedia Poll I don't consider the discussion of the technical details of IP filtering for a poll on a site not devoted to polling to be notable.

  • Eh...

External links A link to the front page of the Softpedia site is sufficient; if there were country-specific versions of Softpedia, these might also be included. This should not be a navigation menu for the site. I don't see a reason to include the answers.com link - that could potentially be included for every article on Wikipedia! Unless there's some motivation for including it for the Softpedia article in particular, it should go. The same is true for big-boards, archive.org, alexa, crawler, statbrain, and netcraft. Other articles on websites do not include these sorts of links.

  • No objections with answers.com or the separate pages on SP.
  • I'm happy you recognized the top 20 was no anywhere on the homepage (as they hide it after they changed the homepage) and kept the link.
  • Big-Boards was kind of dumb since it is a stupid in its nature...I was just trying to find "external links" related to the site.
  • Archive.org I think is relavant for a WEBSITE. It is another form of "history" and I think it should be included.
  • I think Alexa should be here but if you think the link in the beginning description is enough and therefore is redundant to include here, fine.
  • Crawler is redundant, and considering they dont get near as much traffic info as Alexa it is somewhat worthless to have.
  • Statbrain...see comment on Big-Boards.
  • Netcraft is a major and highly trusted anti-phishing site. People who live and die by this site would find a link to SP.com at netcraft useful.

Ridiculous fish 00:02, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

reversion[edit]

Far too much material was removed in that last edit. One of the aspects of being bold is that if you go too far, others may revert it. Your assertions of copyvio, by the way, need to be asserted with the {{copyvio}} template, instead of merely blanking them. Also, your statement that the Softpedia admins should not be editing this page is wrong. They're perfectly welcome to edit the page and correct information: they just should not be the principle contributors, but even this is a guideline and not a policy. Remember, this is the encyclopedia that ANYONE can edit. SWATJester Flag of Iceland.svg Ready Aim Fire! 06:42, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I think you'll find that while I removed a lot of text, I removed very little information; I merely rearranged it, improved it, and made it more compact. If there was information you felt I removed that deserved to be part of the article, it would have been better to add it to my changed version.
I never said that "the Softpedia admins should not be editing this page." I said exactly what you said, that they should not be the principal maintainers. And what I said was in response to the suggestion that the article should be changed ONLY if "the Softpedia admins felt that there was too much information disclosed about the site." That's obviously not true. As you point out, anyone can - and should - edit this.
Here, in my opinion, are the major problems with this article:
*Large parts of the article are taken verbatim from the site, without attribution; this is a copyright problem.
*Much of the content is concerned with the details of how to use the site; in fact, it's copied and pasted from the help page. This article should not be a "how to" page for Softpedia. Examples: "The Navigation Menu is located in the header and is composed of six buttons" and "Clicking on the parts of this path takes you to that specific place...."
*There is non-NPOV, self-aggrandizing terms, e.g. the "highly respected 100% Clean award"
*There is information which is verifiably false. For example, Softpedia does not produce a screenshot for each program, as can be verified by visiting http://mac.softpedia.com/get/Developer-Tools/KFDecorator.shtml
*There is other information which is not verifiable, such as "Softpedia is best known for doing thorough testing of each software product and game they list..." This requires a reference, or the claim should be weakened to "Softpedia claims..."
* There is redundant or superfluous information, such as the screenshot of the "Feedback Form" page. There needs to be some justification for inclusion of these mundane details.
*Grammar, capitalization, spelling errors, and the continued use of the phrase "our site" to refer to Softpedia.
I have written another, less aggressive edit that fixes all of these problems as best I can. If you (Swatjester, Cableguy, or whoever else) still considers this edit too aggressive, I plead with you to fix it by adding additional content to the page that you feel is missing, NOT by simply reverting it and reintroducing all of the problems I listed above. We need to get past the continued reversions to the flawed original article.
Ridiculous fish 10:09, 31 March 2006 (UTC)



A bloggers comment on softpedia Hugo's blog.

I think it's problematic at best to list the softpedias awards so superficialy as long as their lab crew is anonymous and their testing procedures and criteria is untransparent. They are an unknown group, and their claims are unprovable.

another blog post on softpedia, on how they distributed a fake firefox build.

As the article stands now, Wikipedia lends of it credibility to softpedia. --Arnljot76 19:27, 3 April 2006 (UTC)


--- It really depends on who you talk to as to the opinion of Softpedia. If you asked me I would say they are trust worthy, and their staff is not anonymous to me. I have asked the admins several times to do something like Download.com does, which is provide a page which has a short little blurb about each Download.com along with a picture. We shall see if they choose to do this in the near future ;).

If you check the link on the blog post of the "fake" browser it doesnt work anymore. Softpedia removed it. On a side note, if you check the history, which I have conveniently put together on the Wiki article, you will see that they didn't start testing the stuff they listed until October 2004. This whole fake browser stuff was listed back in 2003, before they actually tested the softwares they listed.

Today they test, HAND TEST, every software listed. Where do you think all the screenshots come from? The ones that don't have screenshots that have been updated recently are either a javascript program, a program run from the command console, or something along those lines.

They still have a lot of archived softwares from 2003 when they became Softpedia.com which have old screenshots and have not been tested. Any software listed before October 2004 which hasnt been updated (by the developer) since then are this way. They will eventually cover all old softwares...just have to be patient. They also rely on user input...so if you send update information about an old software that can help them update old softwares.

-CableguyTK 8:43PM EST, April 14, 2006.

Not safe[edit]

This article should be removed because it promotes a web sites which pops up dangerous and weird windows! I use Zone Alarm Pro as a firewall and Kaspersky Anti-Virus, I know my computer is clean and protected so I decided to give Softpedia a try. While I was checking for a program, the content of the page suddenly changed to some nasty spam/malware ad and I immediately disconnected my modem. I knew something like that would happen since it's a Romanian site. (Do not get me wrong, no offense). Remove / delete this article at once! (You can check the site if you don't believe me.) 85.103.223.209 02:35, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Criticism[edit]

Where is criticism from the article? Where is NPOV? My only encounter with Softpedia were Free Download Manager, which it claims is spyware and adware-free. Yeah, it's not adware, but it contains ads (advertisement about advertising in the program :), and it suspiciously have ~2..3% CPU usage even when not downloading. It's a software with access to the internet, so it also isn't sure if it is spyware-free. Its softpedia article is like a bad PR text and doesn't contain any remarkable information about the testing, the behaviour of the program, etc. Also, this cableguy should be banned. Frigo 21:51, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit]

I've added the Advert template to this article, because many of the images, links, and details provided read more like an advertisement than an encyclopedic article. Many of these details are already available on Softpedia's website, and do not need to be included here. If you're having navigation desing issues with your website, fix your website instead of trying to cram unnecessary lists of links onto Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a repository of links or images. --Dachannien 20:26, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I think we can even consider it for deletion & rewrite from scratch. It's simply a too detailed spam. Frigo 11:31, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Sigh[edit]

Jesus you people need to get a life and worry about more pressing articles. There should be an article called "Keeping it real". Advert? Are you kidding me? You might as well delete every article on here about a webpage...they are all adverts if that is the case. NPOV...what on here is not NPOV? There is nothing on here which makes negative or positive comments towards any other site or any feature of the Softpedia site. It is an informative article about a genuine site on the internet. If you find something, then stop being a dope and complaining about it here. You people seem to know how to use the edit button. Instead of posting about it here and complaining how the article is NPOV or whatever the hell you think is wrong, just edit the page as you see fit. You people keep trying to make yourselves out to be patriots of Wikipedia...trying to make it the perfect encyclopedia. Fine, sounds great....however, you aren't helping your cause by complaining about this article, putting dumb tags and not editing it yourself.

Either edit the article as you see fit, or move on to the next article. This article hardly needs any of your input. 10:11, 16 November 2006 (UTC)Cableguytk

Nominating this article for deletion is sounding like a better idea all the time, but I'll be kind and just put the advert template back in. --Dachannien 00:38, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Maybe I didn't make myself clear. There is a reason why you choose to be an editor/contributor here. You CHOOSE to EDIT articles. E-D-I-T. As I tried and SUCCEEDED in making clear to another person who did the same dumb crap you are doing with tags with another article I contributed to, if YOU think the article requires changes then YOU make the changes. YOU can't expect someone else to do the changes YOU want to make. Stop being dumb and putting dumb tags and instead make the edits YOU want to make. Be a wikipedia saint, and make contributions which are actually worthwhile. The article's intent is good, if you think the content is bad then edit it. No one is going to do the work for you, as you have seen from the history. I am one of maybe, three people who edit. Either you can become the fourth, or just leave the article alone. --CableguyTK Cableguytk 01:48, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
WP:OWN --Dachannien 19:17, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

To Frigo[edit]

Yes please try. I dont see what I am doing wrong. I am defending the effort that I have put into the articles I contribute to.
Instead of defending against people who ACTUALLY EDIT THE CONTENT, which I dont mind, I am defending it against a bunch of dopes who do nothing but put dumb TAGS, expecting OTHER PEOPLE to do the work they will never do.
What spamming? I dont see spamming. I am legitimately talking about the edits here on this discussion page. All you seem to do is just come here and ask the admins for a ban. Talk about real contributions to Wikipedia.
If CRAP is what you call the content you are removing, then so be it. I at least got your LAZY ass to do something. *claps hands*.
I certainly dont think very highly of you. Id like to know someone who does.
.
.
.
Oh, and by the way, if the real Wikipedia police found this article to be an advertisement, it would have been deleted by now. Seeing as how it hasn't...sucks for you. Cableguytk 21:09, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Negative edit about Softpedia[edit]

I heard about Softpedia for the first time today, so I started poking around. I have evidence that the site actively participates in the distribution of malware. I intend to soon edit the article to this effect, and I will ensure that my edits will be within Wikipedia guidelines and acceptable to the community at large.

I mention this here because some editors here seem to be very emotional about Softpedia. I would like to give you an opportunity to respond before I make this edit. Jarhed 00:24, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Reply[edit]

I have evidence that the site actively participates in the distribution of malware

WHAT evidence? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.97.183.187 (talk) 09:03, 18 December 2006 (UTC).


Softpedia is a malware site[edit]

My security software also reads Softpedia as full of malware, etc. I guess this article should be immediately edited and a clear warning about softpedia-related threats should be added to it.

By the way, an annoing automatic forum poster (spambot) is advertised on a site that has recently received softedias "safety certificate". I guess this should be remarkable as well as the fact, that infamous icontool has received that certificate too. Anybody brave (or stupid) enough can download one of of these and check it himself. Nobody should visit softpedia when using an IE browser, anyway :)

@ Cableguy: you seem to be very interested in spreading the false information about those suckers from Softpedia. Aren't you somehow connected with them? That would be very possible, judging from your whole activity in this discussion. People, don't let another spammer fool you! Cableguy is just one of those guys trying to spread Softpedia brand across the web: type in 'softpedia' in your local (national) Google and check, how these f**** are tricky: they are posting fake articles/comments, stating that rest is to be found on softpedia website. Again: In my opinion this article should be converted to the proper state - it should warn people from accessing Softpedia.

Year of founding[edit]

According to this source, Softpedia.com was established in 2003. However, I think that just reflects the year that the name was changed from Softnews.ro to Softpedia.com. At this time, we just need a source to confirm that Softnews.ro was created in November 2001. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 04:23, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

McAfee SiteAdvisor quote[edit]

Cableguytk, that some of Softpedia's downloads contain adware is not presented as an indisputable fact, but is rather attributed specifically to McAfee SiteAdvisor. Per Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, articles must "represent fairly and without bias all significant views (that have been published by reliable sources)." This means that relevant negative information must be included as well.

As for your most recent comment, I want to kindly ask you to refrain from making personal attacks on me. I have no interest in smearing or glorifying Softpedia. I will note again: the existence or non-existence of content in any other article has absolutely no relevance to status of content in this article. If a reliable source claims that some of Download.com's downloads contain adware, you may note it in the Download.com article, but that piece of information is not relevant to this article.

If there is a reason to remove the quote, other than that the same can be said of Download.com (not relevant) or that the quote diminishes the number of people who visit Softpedia (Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising), please state it. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 20:08, 28 June 2007 (UTC)


  • First off, since you are making it your duty to put it on Softpedia's page you should be making it your duty to put it on all download sites pages...

http://www.siteadvisor.com/sites/download.com/summary - Download.com
http://www.siteadvisor.com/sites/tucows.com/summary - Tucows
http://www.siteadvisor.com/sites/simtel.net/summary - Simtel

I can go on and on (the list of sites which have the generic message is endless). Every download site has this message from SiteAdvisor, at least those which SiteAdvisor has gotten around to testing. Seeing as how articles for ALL of those sites exists, it is beyond me why you are giving Softpedia preferential treatment in listing this dumb bit of information.

I question your motives for listing this information on Softpedia if you are not listing it (legitimately) on the other pages listed. If your intents were in fact neutral you would be making it your duty to list it on all of those pages, which makes me believe this is a genuine smear campaign.

I would also like to see if you would defend the bit of information if you run into the same resistance on those respective pages. Not only am I sure that you will run into resistance, but Im also sure you would probably ignore it.

Second, you are leaving out half of the bit: "In our tests of this site, a very small percentage of its many downloads contained adware or other unwanted programs. However, Softpedia prohibits these programs and removes them when found."

Third, Softpedia doesnt host the software, it links to them. I can goto many sites (that are not softpedia affiliated) and find a link which leads to "bad" software. One day I went to Alexa.com and it was linking to ContraVirusPro.com in its traffic graph because traffic has spiked. Little did I know that ContraVirus is a known rogue antivirus program which should not be installed.

The bit of information is generic in its nature and worthless for sites of this nature since nobody has control of developers changing their policy to include adware, nor do they notify the download site of the information. Cableguytk 17:52, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Cableguytk, please stop listing other articles. I don't give a damn about Softpedia or about the other websites. The only reason I even noticed your edit to this page is that I happened to watchlist it after it was nominated for deletion some weeks ago. I have no duty to do anything. This is a volunteer online project, not the military. As for your other point, you may add to the quote if you wish.
I can see that the only way to resolve this will be through dispute resolution. However, I'll drop the issue for someone else to pick up, for the simple reason that it's not worth pursuing for the inclusion or exclusion of just one sentence.
I will also encourage you to remember the principle of assuming good faith and of commenting on content as opposed to the contributor. Wikipedia is not filled with editors hell-bent on harming Softpedia (note that it was someone else who originally added that sentence). Accusations of the type you've made can lead to blocking per the policies on civility and personal attacks. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 18:20, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Just Some Facts[edit]

I researched Softpedia as it seemed to have the potential of being an excellent resource for free software. I quoted from Symantec and McAffee web sites. Both which I consider to be standards in the computer security business but that is my opinion. There are some interesting negative points brought up about Softpedia in this discussion such that it distributes software for generating spam. I don't have the time to see if it is still distributing it. It appears that Softpedia honestly tries to weed out bad software but is not 100% successful.JTH01 21:00, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

For a few reasons, I have reverted your additions. First, articles should avoid self-references ("reader is urged to consider", "it is worth noting", and so on). Second, part of the content was copy-pasted directly from the McAfee website, but not surrounded with quotation marks. Finally, I think your addition introduced an original synthesis in that it attempted to establish a connection between Symantec's decision and Softpedia's safety and moreover attempted to suggest something about the website's integrity (a highly subjective concept). Such claims (including such connections) should be attributed to reliable sources. I do believe that Softpedia tries to weed out bad software, and the issue of download safety may be worth writing about, but any added content should be based purely on what reliable sources have to say about the subject. Cheers, Black Falcon (Talk) 23:48, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Could the wikipedia page be opinionated? Something like : softpedia does not link back to the original website, presenting itself as being the main provider of the software. For example the winpcap page http://www.softpedia.com/get/Network-Tools/Protocol-Analyzers-Sniffers/WinPcap.shtml does not link to winpcap.org at all, and visiting the download page for winpcap http://www.softpedia.com/progDownload/WinPcap-Download-25344.html is even worse since the downloads links all point to winpcap.org but they are labelled as "mirror". Let's make this clear : this site never provides anything else but copy & paste from the original with only link to the binaries going back to the original site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.109.72.246 (talk) 13:40, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi, "my" softpedia pages (http://handheld.softpedia.com/get/Audio/oTuner-80311.shtml etc) do link back to my original homepage via the developer page (http://handheld.softpedia.com/developer/code-Biscuit-11841.html). Further, I would assume that I've got the option of asking them to link to it in the "Description" section on their front page for my software (although I've had mixed success with getting them to edit that). I found that my software appeared on the site with somewhat shoddy descriptions (definitely not copy-pastes!), screenshots and links "without my consent", but I was happy enough to have another link to my site and they've now done most of the corrections I asked for when I contacted them: I find them reasonably helpful, if a little spurious! 5thWheel (talk) 15:30, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Malware Site[edit]

I know that Softpedia is a malware site. I know this because I have found downloads on Softpedia of common, standard downloads that are available everywhere, but on the Softpedia site, have been altered from their original to also install malware.

The main purpose of the Softpedia site is to deceive individuals into downloading and installing malware. The site administrators are extremely sophisticated, and use numerous social engineering techniques to deceive individuals. In my opinion, this is one of the worst malware sites on the Internet. I am now working to document this via an authoritative third party, as per Wikipedia rules.

Talk to you later! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jarhed (talkcontribs) 19:42, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I have reverted your recent addition, for three reasons. First, the added content was controversial but unsourced (see WP:V). Second, "some individuals have accused ..." is a weasel worded statement. What individuals? Claims of allegations should generally be attributed. Third, the final statement, urging "extreme care", effectively constitutes a disclaimer, which goes against current practice and policy. If there are allegations in reliable sources that Softpedia is a malware site or contains malware, they should be noted and attributed. Cheers, Black Falcon (Talk) 20:30, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I have made no edits to this article yet, but I will just as soon as I have a verifiable source. Have a great day!Jarhed (talk) 12:17, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't know why people add opinions to a Wikipedia page based on their own findings and not after they verify it against multiple sources. Please reference your "information" before posting anything. The page details general information about the site with no "extra" promotion. I have a problem with Facebook, but I don't add my opinion to Facebook's main wiki page. It's MY opinion. If this page is considered to be as "promotional", than Facebook, Microsoft, Yahoo and all other pages should be deleted as well. They are as promotional as this one. Campuscodi (talk) 08:59, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Image[edit]

Image is outdated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.17.197.251 (talk) 11:26, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

lack of tird party information[edit]

I find it alarming that there is apparently no independent citable third party review of this entity, here or anywhere on the net. If there was an independent published reviewe of the site, it should be included. The absence if this also speaks volumes. Stephen Charles Thompson (talk) 06:08, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Malware section[edit]

Can anyone provide a legitimate, policy based explanation for why that section is there? We generally do not provide what is essentially promotional information for a site unless it is notable enough to have been discussed in third party sources, and even then it's not always acceptable to include. Unless there's a good reason, I'm inclined to remove the whole section. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:31, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I looked at the URLs posted by one editor (they have since been deleted). They are all repeats of a single news item. The item was about one spyware program being distributed in several programs. Those programs were carried by several download sites. Softpedia was one of those sites. This belongs to a more general article like download website or something. --Enric Naval (talk) 12:16, 20 December 2010 (UTC)


Request for deletion[edit]

This "article" is an advertisement. It is unbalanced and does not mention Softpedia practices like scraping PyPI [1]. Also note that some scraped Wikipedia pages (which serve Google ads) magically have links to Softpedia entries [2].

In case the Softpedia link disappears, it was a link in the added section "Zope - Example Usage" (bit.ly/ftr1qW), redirecting to:

http://linux.softpedia.com/get/Programming/Libraries/z3c-soap-64151.shtml?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

-sanstaafl

Other sites are allowed to scrape Wikipedia--you can read full details at Wikipedia:Text of Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License. Those sites can then do anything they want with it, including linking to Softpedia--it is of no concern to us.
Second, if the article reads like an ad, then the solution is to improve it so that it is neutral, not delete it, unless you can demonstrate that it is impossible to write a neutral article (because no neutral sources exist). Third, if you have a reliable source, you are welcome to add information about "scraping PyPI" (whatever that means). Please note, though, that the link you provided does not meet our guidelines for reliable sources. But we don't delete articles because they don't list every single thing about the subject. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:57, 16 January 2011 (UTC)