Talk:Jajah

Spyware?

Extremetech ran an article on February describing Jajah as "not quite spyware, but close" [1]. The article mentions some alarming practices in this service's EULA, as seen below:

"The company's privacy policy and EULA, however, seem to imply that the service could be used as a window into a user's online activities, including monitoring a user's surfing habits and the content a user posts to message boards and web sites, sending him spam, disclosing personal information to third parties without control and consent, and even potentially allowing a third party to eavesdrop on the conversation."

Perhaps someone might want to incorporate this to the article? Porfyrios 20:43, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with this --Skoorb 13:32, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

There is an official response to the spyware allegations. [2] Alex.g 08:21, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

this is advertising—Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

524147466 Ffghhjkbc (talk) 17:58, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

522456789 Ffghhjkbc (talk) 17:58, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

True... only advertising

And therefore it should be deleted—Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

I do not agree with this statement. This seems to be as notable as other VoIP software with articles, although it does need a clean up. --Skoorb 13:32, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

There are such thin lines between what would be called either informational or advertising. I am only here now in light of Jajah's closure so this can clearly no longer be called advertising, and if it ever were has surely never performed well as advertising. In fact Wikipedia may have been a contributor to Jajah's demise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cwisehart (talk • contribs) 14:50, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Merge

I suggest that this article be merged with Jajah Web and Jajah Webphone and then cleaned up a bit. As it stands all three of these articles are of poor quality. Any suggestions or comments? --Skoorb 13:32, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Agree--Teemuk 10:21, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Also agreed. Jlittlet 03:51, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Also agreed. Alan2here 13:42, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I just tried to fix the problem and got it wrong, fixed now, well there still seems to be duplicates. Alan2here 15:49, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

This is blatant abuse of wikipedia

This is nothing but advertising for these people, and as such should be removed.—Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

There are many other companies out there doing the same thing, and in a better manner. If they aren't listed here, then why are these guys?—Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

(1) Please sign your posts. (2) The article is a very dry and factual one about a commerical service, so to me it isn't advertising and should not be deleted. However, it could be improved. (3) Adding a list of competitors or a link to such a list would be a useful addition. Bob schwartz 17:45, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Needs cleanup. Reading like advertisement is a good reason to cleanup, a bad reason to delete if the subject is notable. Mathiastck 18:34, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. This is basically a commercial for these people. If not, where is the entry for competitors such as EStara and Jaduka?—Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

I also agree, Although to be fair to them they are the only company who allow you to connect two people together into a call and choose who has to pay the charge without having to sign up for a pay for subscription or anything yourself. Alan2here 13:45, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

JaJah is not the only company who allows you to connect two people together in a call without having to pay them. We tried to post a similar, factual article about our company and it was deleted. I don't understand why JaJah gets to stay while other companies, who also have notable achievements and awards, are deleted.

Merge and Add some Stuff

Merge with other articles about the same thing. Also it is now a "recomended" (by FireFox) FireFox Plugin. This should be in the article, I don't think the Firefox plugin monitors you'r web activerty. Alan2here 13:42, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion

This article is not notable. It does not cite any verifiable references. -- (Pasca 02:50, 11 January 2007 (UTC))

Their blog and media picks at Kaboodle provide many verifiable references -- Frederik 09:35, 21 February 2007 (PST)

I believe those are media placements, i.e. advertising. Toddstreat1 01:19, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

TechCrunch review

RolandR removed this, asking readers to see the Talk page, where supposedly there is objection to this as "spam". I see nothing here by RolandR (or anyone else) referring to this at all. TechCrunch is one of the best known, most respectable on-line sources , and this is a 3rd party review of a new feature of jajah. It is a new development, in line with the dozen others already listed in that section. i do;t see how this is "spam". Isarig 15:14, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I was writing the section below at the time this was posted. --RolandR 15:43, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Spam

The link I removed today is from a source which describes itself as "a weblog dedicated to obsessively profiling and reviewing new Internet products and companies"[3]. It was added by an editor who only appears to edit articles about Jajah, and whose User page contains nothing except a link to his own blog, where you can read "i've been with jajah for quite a while now and very happy to be part of this amazing international team. i rarely blog about our own services but we are launching jajah buttons these days and i have to share this with you."[4] It is inappropriate for a paid employee of a company to use Wikipedia to promote his employer's services and products.

A similar link was previously removed as spam by another editor [5]. Several previous edits favourable to Jajah have been made by an anonymous editor, whose IP is allocated to Jajah [6]. Other favourable edits have been made by users Jajah and ILuvJajah, and by anonymous editors, most of whom only edit this article. Many of these edits have been removed by other editors as "spam" and "blatant product pushing".

Meanwhile, material unfavourable to Jajah has been excluded. There was an earlier attempt to remove any mention of Jajah's competitors. My own attempt to include a reference to unexpected Jajah charges -- not mentioned in their terms and conditions, but only in personal emails -- was rejected as unsourced (the same information can be found in blogs at least as reliable as the one I have just deleted).

It appears to me that there is a serious attempt here to use this article as free advertising for Jajah. We should not allow this, and must be very vigilant to remove any hint of such use.--RolandR 15:41, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

The blog in question is TechCrunch, which is a notable source - notable enough to have its own WP article, which states "TechCrunch['s] ... Technorati rank is 4, and is their 2nd most favorited blog. As of July 28, 2007, it has over 530,000 web feed subscribers as measured by tracking company FeedBurner." It is the project of Michael Arrington, himself a notable expert on the topic, as his own WP article states - "Magazines such as Wired and Forbes have named Arrington one of the most powerful people on the internet". This is not at all comparable to the rather obscure blog which was previously (and rightly) removed.

I have a different view regarding the appropriateness of posting by employees, but you are correct that current WP guidelines frown on this. It is a moot point , though, because I am not a Jajah employee, have no such conflict of interst, and *I* have added this content now, so you are now removing well sourced content by an editor with no COI. You seem to have some sort of personal grudge against Jajah, related to a billing dispute. Perhaps you are correctly describing this as Jajah trying to rip you off, or perhaps Jajah is correctly billing you according to their TOS which you violated. I don't know and don't care - but this project is not the place for you to settle scores with service providers that you believe have wronged you. You should also note that if you belive it is innappropriate for an employee to edit the article due to a COI, it is just as inappropriate for a disgruntled customer with an active billing dispute to edit. Isarig 17:02, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Dear RolandR and readers, thank you for your feedback and thank you Isarig for your support! I didn't want to intrude or misuse Wikipedia at any point in time. Yes, I work at Jajah since day one and it's not a secret, I'm a Wikipedia user and love this incredible source of knowledge but I'm not an active editor here. Nevertheless, being with this company for nearly 3 years now of course I check this article from time to time regarding how up-to-date it is and what information has been added by the Wikipedia community. I absolutely support anybody who is contributing to this article, cleans it up or adds objective information and whenever I added an item in the timeline I tried to describe it as objective as possible. I think that we have achieved great things over the years and I'm happy that others contribute to this article and support us, I started our blog in mid 2005 and it contains and refers to a lot of reliable sources in the short history of Jajah. Please get back to me if you have any feedback or questions regarding this article or Jajah in general, you'll find my email address in my personal blog. Thank you and regards, Frederik - Netzkobold 11:42, 23 October 2007 (PST)

Free calls?

Email from support@jajah.com:

Dear JAJAH user,

Currently you cannot make free calls, therefore calls to other JAJAH members are not free for you.

If you will make a payment, you will be able to make free calls, and paid calls. The free calls will be free, your credit will not be reduced by making free calls.

Yours,

xxxx JAJAH Support Team

So I ask again, what does "free" mean to Jajah? And should we be acting as unpaid publicists for their misleading hype? RolandR (talk) 17:43, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

if you read the article you'll see that Jajah does limit your free calls. Pay a little and you'll be ok. Happy138 (talk) 18:11, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

So you have to pay in order to get free calls, which is the point I was not allowed to make in the article. RolandR (talk) 18:54, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

You get free calls. You pay a little - you get more free calls. It is mentioned in the article. Happy138 (talk) 18:55, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Then they are not "free". Free means without payment; I don't understand how you can expect to redefine English like this, and get away with it!RolandR (talk) 20:05, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Do you have this same argument in every shop that offers you "buy one, get one free"? --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 22:28, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

No; but they don't claim that their offer is "completely free, with no hidden costs". It appears that, since I first complained, Jajah have amended their website to clarify what they mean by "free", so it would seem that they agree that their original claim was, at the very least, unclear. But this is not properly reflected in our article, which still reads like an advert rather than an encyclopaedia article. RolandR (talk) 00:30, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

originally it was free, but after a while they altered it. I think the article represents that fairly. Happy138 (talk) 10:06, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

It's only advertising

this article is a advertising of the jajah service. In my opinion, it must be deleted asap. !. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Crosemffet (talk • contribs) 13:58, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. Happy138 (talk) 16:01, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Jajah. 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/20100106131241/http://www.jajah.com:80/prices/? to http://www.jajah.com/prices/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080828190625/http://www.forbes.com:80/technology/2007/10/04/ebay-jajah-skype-tech-cx_rr_1004jajah.html to http://www.forbes.com/technology/2007/10/04/ebay-jajah-skype-tech-cx_rr_1004jajah.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130119080256/http://www.ymessengerblog.com/blog/2012/11/30/updates-to-yahoo-messenger-features to http://www.ymessengerblog.com/blog/2012/11/30/updates-to-yahoo-messenger-features
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100122045223/http://www.jajah.com:80/support/faq/general/? to http://www.jajah.com/support/faq/general/#10
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110719141007/http://www.jajah.com/downloads/press/jajah_press_free_calls_0606_en.pdf to http://www.jajah.com/downloads/press/jajah_press_free_calls_0606_en.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070217162058/http://www.jajah.com:80/info/help/faq/freecalls/ to http://www.jajah.com/info/help/faq/freecalls/

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) 03:50, 30 November 2016 (UTC)