Talk:Google Pack/Archive 1
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Google Pack. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 |
Googlepaks spam
Recently, 67.83.153.55 (talk · contribs) has been editing in links to a Google Adsense referral generating site in order to profit from mistaken clicks from this article. I've reverted this a number of times and have started warning the IP user. Unfortunately, other IP users have done the same edits in the past and I suspect they are the same person or series of people working together.
Related IP users: 67.83.152.246 (talk · contribs) 65.90.227.67 (talk · contribs) 24.149.132.191 (talk · contribs)
In response to this I have sent an e-mail to Adsense's abuse department in hopes of some sort of more permanent solution. --sigmafactor 17:58, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
AU CONTRAIRE SENIOR HIPPOCRITE
It is kind of hypocritical that a Wikipedia article that ultimately results in clicks BACK to Google which many times results in a conver$ion for Google, is challenging a EXTERNAL LINK. At least the external link is warning the user “Hey, you are going to a 3rd party url”. This is not spam. The GOOGLE PACK article is spam. It is cloaked as informative but at the end of the day this article is a violation of Wikipedia. External links are not mandated as having to be solely related to the article’s benefactor. So indeed, expect to see external links on this site forever. Hypocrite. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.67.148.171 (talk • contribs)
- It is not your right to keep adding for-profit links to Wikipedia articles. If you keep doing so, expect abuse notices to be sent to Adsense in kind. --sigmafactor 16:14, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
- In response to your claim that the other, official Google Pack links are also for-profit: This is an article about Google Pack and the links to the official site are useful; linking to an unofficial site with no extra information and the sole purpose of making AdSense referral money is not. --sigmafactor 19:42, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
- If you believe that the entire article is spam, you may submit it for deletion at [[1]] to see if the consensus agrees with your opinion. Sancho McCann 00:20, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
"This is an article about Google Pack and the links to the official site are useful; "
This statement impugns itself and you as well.
The user is essentially marketed through compelling information that the "for-profit-Google Pack" is a great tool to download.
If that is allowed (god forbid wikipedia or its editorial people acknowledge the entire article as a violation) then a download link in an EXTERNAL link area is complicit with the page.
The AdSense campaigns are all Google Content Approved for distribution of the Google Pack. It’s of total relevance given the curious decision to allow the current page to stand as a non-commercial informational. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.241.46.11 (talk • contribs)
Unfortunately, though, linking to a site that you have created for referrals that generate personal profit violates the following Wikipedia guidelines:
Wikipedia:External links - Links normally to be avoided: "Except for a link to a page that is the subject of the article or an official page of the article subject—and not prohibited by restrictions on linking—one should avoid: 1. Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article." Google's own Google Pack articled is therefor allowed, while your context poor website is not.
Wikipedia:Conflict of interest - Financial: By adding a link to this site "you expect to derive monetary or other benefits or considerations from editing Wikipedia".
If you believe that I am incorrect, feel free to contact an administrator here.--sigmafactor 21:55, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
"Unfortunately, though, linking to a site that you have created for referrals that generate personal profit violates the following Wikipedia guidelines:"
REPLY ========== TRIPE
You just do not get it, or just being belligerent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.241.46.11 (talk • contribs)
The entire review/wikipedial of the Google product is conducive of an effort that generates profit. Legal has been consulted. Indeed the external link is equal OR less offensive then the shameless promotion of a set of Google profit products that violates the Wikipedia guidelines. You have no right to be judge and jury. While the complaint is filed, the link will continue to appear. Happy editing.
- Please refer to Wikipedia:WikiProject_Spam#Common_spammer_strawmen and note the first point. --sigmafactor 23:32, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
- Also, if you believe that there is material in this article that takes a non-neutral point of view, you are free to correct it so that it is line with Wikipedia policy. Flaws in an article do not validate further violation of Wikipedia policy.Sancho McCann 00:24, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Civility
Anonymous contributors: please read Wikipedia:Civility. Some of your comments may be interpreted as uncivil (for example, the "senior hippocrite" heading) and don't contribute to a discussion that would help resolve the differences between the parties in this discussion. As well, calling another editor belligerent gives an impression that you are not assuming good faith by the other party. I think we are all working towards the improvement of Wikipedia, and it would be better not to assume otherwise without evidence. Sancho McCann 00:48, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
- In addition, the anonymous contributor above should read Wikipedia:No legal threats. Comments such as "Legal has been consulted" verge on violating this policy. Don't go there. -- Satori Son 01:40, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Notability Extended
Yes. I agree. The things we see as notable is that if you are a big mega company, editors will pander to you some level of protection. The 'notable' item we see is that this entire product listing is a sham. It just should not be here. Nor should sigmafactor. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.195.246.144 (talk) 12:19, 5 February 2007 (UTC).
- Attacking other editors because you don't like an article is not acceptable behavior on wikipedia. Please follow our civility and no personal attacks policies. sigmafactor is a welcome contributor here. -- Siobhan Hansa 13:23, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
- Again, the proper route to take if you really believe that an article is a sham is to list it for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion.Sancho McCann 16:52, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Reality
* Mozilla Firefox with Google Toolbar * Ad-Aware SE Personal * Norton AntiVirus 2005 Special Edition - comes with a 6-month trial * Adobe Reader 7 * RealPlayer * GalleryPlayer * Skype
All commercial for-profit products listed. Now we have a first that I can recall. We have a behometh company and its products listed at Wikipedia WITH edit protection. This needs to be vaulted to the publics attention. Time for the BLOG. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.195.246.144 (talk) 12:15, 5 February 2007 (UTC).
- The edit protection is limited to non-registered users and registered users newer than four days old. The reason for the protection was apparent heavy vandalism. Sancho McCann 16:59, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Notability
We should add some information about the notability of this subject. It's not clear from the article why it is notable. Sancho McCann 06:46, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
- Okay, I've added a few more references to some media coverage of the product. One of them has Google Pack as its primary subject. Sancho McCann 19:33, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Anyone see the For Profit Adsense-a-Pedia?
Yes. I agree. There is some chicanery afoot and at the very least, some serious double standards being employed by Wikipedia. Last I heard, adsense was a money maker. Wikipedia lets stuff like that in? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.241.109.163 (talk) 14:03, 6 February 2007 (UTC).
- Yes, Wikipedia does allow external links to commercial sites that add to the quality of the article by providing the user a path to the subject of the article. If the article was about Microsoft, there would be a link to Microsoft.com, for example. Sancho McCann 16:34, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
What happened?
What happened to all those other software? They seem to be no longer in the Pack. (I was kinda hoping for Norton AntiVirus 2005) - PGSONIC 04:45, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
- Norton AntiVirus, for one, was replaced by a special edition of Norton Security Scan (Google's version has the ability to scan *and remove* viruses). A better choice, IMO, since it's free, instead of trialware. -Mysterius 05:02, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
software as a service
the article has to illustrate the idea behind Google Pack and how software will be distributed in the future . You've only one package management system through which you can get software installed to your machine only, you can't get the setup program of this software and redistribute it to your friends or install it on other machine.
It may be a paid service by software companies and they won't worry again about software piracy or cracking, developers won't bother themselves writing complex protection codes, it's an evil idea. --Notopia 11:15, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
StarOffice payments
The StarOffice installation comes with a Google toolbar pre-installed. It is likely that searching Google through this will generate revenue for Sun (just as Mozilla Foundation and Opera Software receive money for searches initiated through their browsers). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.95.240.21 (talk) 18:29, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Notability Extended Again
This is no attack and the inference is not appreciated. That editor made in-congruent statements. Indeed sigmafactor is probably just following the protocol for WikiP publishing (however misguided). There still seems to be no response to sigmafactor's statement that the Google Pack was somehow "notable". What is notable. Fast Forward--->. Its' very notable that Google makes great software. Here is a list of products that Google wants you to install so Google can make lots of money. Perhaps more now that we will lasso your install as a result of your visit to Wikipedia.
And sigmafactor / WikiP (whatever) boots EXTERNAL LINKS which were 1000% relevant, adsense or not. (as in Adsense, another lovely WikiP financial gain opp for Google).
I wonder if WikiP is actually doing business with Google. Why not question it? Google is essentially allowed to get advertisement by these listings which essentailly violate WikiP's terms. At a Blatant Level btw. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.195.246.144 (talk • contribs)
If not for the Civility policy, I would be calling you a number of very nasty names right now. And I probably am violating it just by saying this to you. Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view; that means we attempt to make every article, even listings about the products of enormous Internet tycoons, as informative as possible. Wikipedia is not a place to advertise; we don't even know if the editors who contributed to this article advocate Google. This article is not useless; quite the contrary, really. Do you see any sentence inserted there (that does not constitute vandalism) that says "GO AND DOWNLOAD GOOGLE PACK NOW FOR FREE!"? No. That, if it were there, would probably make this an advertisement. But instead, we give a list of applications included in the Google Pack and some information about them. The external link we provide is solely for the convenience of the average reader to go to should they wish to download the Google Pack. It is not as though we put the link in 100-point font and label it in fluorescent letters, "GET IT NOW FOR FREE!" Think it over. And sorry to all if I violate any policies here. Danny Sepley (talk) 13:37, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
RealPlayer
Why did Google choose RealPlayer? RealPlayer is a horrible piece of software. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.177.80.46 (talk) 19:06, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Javascript details
This site is obviously well-written, but I was not happily surprised to find my Firefox browser apparently giving out a list of every application installed on the computer. I've looked over the code[2] a little, but I haven't written JavaScript and am encountering a bit of a learning curve. Can someone explain how the script gets this information, how much information it can conceivably get (such as app serial number...), and whether this information is included in what is sent by "urchinTracker"? And above all, whether there is a way to secure the browser against this vulnerability without keeping JavaScript off entirely? Wnt (talk) 22:17, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Skype got removed
check it on the official site. so remove it from the article and put it as StarOffice (was) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nkour (talk • contribs) 12:08, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
avast!
In some markets (aka languages) Google offers avast! Free Antivirus instead of Spyware Doctor. --201.223.92.164 (talk) 21:53, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
External Links
Since both items in the External Links section redirect to the webpage with the "pack." prefix removed (for example, "pack.google.com" redirects to simply "google.com"), should the section be removed outright or have it noted that the links no longer work? 74.15.69.22 (talk) 02:24, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
Development
Is it in development? -- Flutefluteflute Talk Contributions 12:02, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
I am no expert, but I would think so. I have the newest version of Google Updater (so I think) and it is labeled "version 2.2.1265.1931.beta.en - ©2007 Google". I am aware it says "copyright 2007", but that was the last time I updated the Google Updater itself. (The Google PACK is updated by the updater.) Danny Sepley (talk) 13:39, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
- it is discontiued
