Talk:NebuAd/Archives/2013

Comments from a NebuAd staffer

To interested editors:

I work at NebuAd and we appreciate the efforts of those who prepared this article.

Having read the NebuAd article as well as the editorial guidance in Wikipedia:FAQ/Business, we were wondering if an editor would be willing to revise the NebuAd article so that it meets Wikipedia standards set forth in Wikipedia:The_perfect_article. In particular:

1. We suggest that an editor Wikify the article (see Wikipedia:WPWF) and organize it using the content headings generally found in articles on similar technologies or companies, such as AdSense or Yahoo. Along those lines, may we suggest the using following headings to organize the NebuAd article:

• History
• Its behavioral targeting services
• How it works
• Its approach to privacy
• Competitors
• Controversies
• External links

2. For statements tagged with “Citation needed”

• We suggest that an editor provide citations for those statements in accordance with the standards listed in Wikipedia:Citation_needed, or
• We request than an editor remove those statements for which citations are not provided (see Wikipedia:BURDEN#Burden_of_evidence)

3. For statements that are vague or unsubstantiated (e.g. “It has been questioned whether Charter…”) we suggest that an editor clarify or remove those statements in order to meet Wikipedia’s style guidelines (see Wikipedia:Avoid_weasel_terms)

Thank you!

Edgar Waingortin (talk) 21:49, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Question about shared references

• About mid-way through this article, there are several ref's linking to #9 and #10. Something appears to have broken down there. I don't think that I did it, but I've been editing quite a bit  :-( Funchords (talk) 03:33, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

The refs look OK to me. Everywhere you have <ref name="theregISPonhop"/> the reflist will link back up to the first instance of a ref with that name. If you want separate refs, then remove the name from the ref tag. Kevin (talk) 03:41, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Kevin! Funchords (talk) 04:39, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

If you're OK then you should remove the {{helpme}} tag from your talk page. Cheers Kevin (talk) 05:34, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Done, thanks again Kevin! Funchords (talk) 14:16, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Topolski replying to Waingortin

I tried to take a shot at some of Edgar Waingortin (talk) concerns. I hope it is an overall improvement. I am "Robert M Topolski" mentioned in the article, so I tried to avoid that direct conflict. Please feel free to scrutinize my changes with that in mind. If I didn't have the conflict, I would add "use of packet forgery" to the introductory paragraph in Controversies, but I don't want to do it myself due to the conflict of interest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Funchords (talk • contribs) Sorry for the unsigned that was me (obviously, since I put my real name up there. Doh! Funchords (talk) 20:59, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

First, thanks to both Waingortin and Topolski for respecting WP's Conflict of Interest guidelines. Mr. Topolski, if "packet forgery" is in fact a part of NebuAd, it is notable and should be included. Can you cite any disinterested third party, who has peer-respected credentials in security and/or privacy research, and who has published any such statements or descriptions in a reliable source, or has been quoted in a reliable source? If so, please place the source and details here on this Talk page; then any WP user/editor who is not a personal part of this controversy could edit the article accordingly. (I'm not here too often, but if you provide the reliable source and no one else has done it when I next get the chance, I'd be pleased to do so.) Unimaginative Username (talk) 06:27, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Unimaginative Username -- so far everything that I've read about the forgery has relied on the research that I did or is not authoritative (anecdotal -- people noticed the script appended to the source but didn't realize how it happened nor systematically rule out other possible causes). I guess I could go forward and cite myself (WP:COS), as I am qualified and the facts are documented and presented with the associated evidence and are not in question. I did have the follow-up conversation with engineers and lawyers at Google and they verified that they are not responsible for the extra packet. Given that it has gone this long in "discussion," I think that's the step I'm eventually going to take -- but out of discretion I am going to wait a bit longer.

I agree with you that it is notable. The privacy advocates think that privacy is the bigger deal, not the forgery. While the privacy problem is a huge deal, I think the Internet itself stands at risk of losing compatibility and investment interest if ISPs each put their own little non-Standardized "twist" and use DPI to change the content and behaviors of the 'net. funchords (talk) 15:42, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

There are multiple possible issues here. Privacy is certainly one. However, regarding packet forgery, I am most definitely *not* an expert, but from general reading, I understand that various types of packet forgery may be involved in Denial of Service attacks, spam, phishing, etc. This is not in any way to accuse NebuAd of any of these, only to say that in addition to privacy concerns, any substantiations of packet forgery are notable for inclusion. It seems as though you've familiarized yourself with the guidelines for citing oneself -- have published your research in a reliable publication, cite said publication(s), and write in the third person (which is why it's even better if you put your proposed changes here on the Talk page and let another user put them in the article). If your published source includes images of a forged packet, data from one, etc., perhaps with explanations for the layman of what was changed and the significance of the change, then those images may be suitable for upload. If your source includes published letters from the Google people, etc., those might be noteworthy citations also. Finally, placing your information and proposed edits here on the Talk page allows Mr. Waingorton or any other representative of NebuAd to reply here (preferably including the same kind of third-party or published documentation), so that some editor (cough) can attempt to represent both points of view accurately. This helps to avoid the unfortunately-common Wikipedia phenomenon known as an "edit war", which should be pretty self-explanatory, and to keep articles truly neutral and verifiable, allowing readers to draw their own conclusions. Regards, Unimaginative Username (talk) 06:16, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

How to discuss possible connections between Claria and NebuAd

I also added all but one of the names mentioned in the final paragraph. I'm uncomfortable with this, as I really only want to draw meaningful lines between Claria and NebuAd. Is there some polite way to say something to the effect of "these names are listed to illustrate the historical links and culture of the company, not to accuse any individual of holding any particular view, opinion, or responsibility for decisions made by the company." I don't know how to do that in an "encyclopedic way." Experienced help and article changes in this area are sincerely welcome.Funchords (talk) 04:38, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

CURRENT VERSION:

There are circumstantial, but interesting, links between NebuAd and Claria Corporation (formerly, the Gator Corporation), famous for the Gator eWallet software widely perceived as spyware. Scott Tavenner, Vice President of Business Development and Chuck Gilbert, Sr. Product Manager previously held the same positions at Claria. Mike Miller, Vice President of Ad Sales at NebuAd was Director of Sales at Claria. Former Claria Integration Manager Amy Auranicky is Director of Advertising Sales at Nebuad. Jeanne Houweling is Nebuad's Vice President of Advertising Services, and was Claria's Senior Director of Business Development just prior. Both Claria and Nebuad are located in Redwood City, California. The Q1 2006 creation of nebuad.com coincides with timing of Claria's decision to shutdown the Gator service.

MY PROPOSED REWRITE:

Some staff members of NebuAd used to work at Claria Corporation (formerly, the Gator Corporation), famous for the Gator eWallet software. Scott Tavenner, Vice President of Business Development and Chuck Gilbert, Sr. Product Manager previously held the same positions at Claria. Mike Miller, Vice President of Ad Sales at NebuAd was Director of Sales at Claria. Former Claria Integration Manager Amy Auranicky is Director of Advertising Sales at Nebuad. Jeanne Houweling is Nebuad's Vice President of Advertising Services, and was Claria's Senior Director of Business Development just prior. Both Claria and Nebuad are located in Redwood City, California. The Q1 2006 creation of nebuad.com coincides with timing of Claria's decision to shut down the Gator service.

I don't think you should call the Gator product 'spyware' here without attributing that choice of words to a specific person or company. Our own spyware article says a bit more, but the referencing for this article ought to be self-contained. You may possibly be able to find a published reference that asserts that Gator decided to spin off their adware business by creating NebuAd, but that is not a conclusion which it's proper for us to draw on our own. The current wording on that looks OK. EdJohnston (talk) 15:16, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestions. I made some changes and thanks to a news story that contained the specific names, I could also generalize the entry and simply refer to it. Funchords (talk) 21:16, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

As someone once associated with Claria, I know most of the people listed above, and I feel the need to say that the purported links between Claria and Nebuad are WAY overstated. True, a few former Claria people are now at Nebuad (at least for a few more weeks :), but NONE of them were major contributors to Claria's business model; they were all rank-and-file sorts who, though smart and compentent folks, neither had the key ideas nor made key any decisions. I think it's more fair to say that the former Claria people are now at Nebuad simply because Claria had a big layoff and many former employees were coincidentally looking for internet-advertising-related jobs at the same time that Nebuad was (independantly, coincidentally) ramping up and was hungry for people with relevant experience (internet advertising veterans are less abundant then, say, webmasters). While it is certainly true that Claria had, and now Nebuad has, a business model that was/is rankling privacy wonks, the "conspiracy theory" bent of this section (i.e. that Nebuad is secretly Claria) is way off base. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.197.87.253 (talk) 20:56, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Your concern seems to be that someone may get the impression that "Nebuad is secretly Claria." Indeed that impression was transmitted unsourced and unresearched for several months before this article existed. The information displayed here now lend actual facts to the rumor, which turns out to be false -- What is true is: NebuAd is not officially secretly Claria, however it's a distinction without much of a difference. The facts are the facts -- both companies exist in the same city, both companies pushed the envelope on privacy, as one company ended Gator the other company sprang up, and all of these individuals worked both places and many of them had the same job in the previous company. All of the elements are sourced. I don't think that NebuAd is tied to Claria by legal means, but I do believe that NebuAd's ethics and corporate culture has everything to do with these people, and its no wonder why both the former Gator and the current NebuAd deal in observation-based advertising models. The only meaningful difference between Gator and NebuAd is that Gator gathered its intelligence from the user's Personal Computer and NebuAd gathers its intelligence from the user's network. funchords (talk) 18:50, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm amused and bothered by how someone cites corporate culture without having worked at either company. I would say that Claria's "ethics and corporate culture" (as perceived by the outside world) are mostly due to McFadden an Weisman, who pushed into uncharted territory in search of revenue. That stategy turned out to be vilified by the 'net community, but that reaction was, to be honest, unexpected. Current NebuAd guys like Tavenner and Gilbert (and others) had NOTHING to do with the formulation of the ethics & culture that is cited here - they were cogs in the machine. Their roles at Claria are vastly over-emphasized here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.197.87.253 (talk) 18:12, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Section headers added

It is normal to have a section header in a Talk page whenever a new topic is introduced. I added a bunch of headers above. Feel free to improve them. I also took the liberty of reformatting the points within E. Waingortin's original request. Undo my changes if you don't like them. EdJohnston (talk) 06:18, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

WP:BLP removal by Edgar Waingortin

In a recent edit, Edgar Waingortin removed a complete table showing the employment of staff members who used to work at Claria and are now at NebuAd. Though it's arguable whether WP:BLP really justifies such a removal, since the data appears factual, I thought the table was pretty shaky due to WP:SYN. Wikipedia should not seem to be going out of its way to line up data to make a company look bad. It's OK if we make a neutral presentation of conclusions that other reliable sources have already drawn. So I lean toward supporting Waingortin's removal of this table. I'd be glad to hear other views on this. EdJohnston (talk) 22:32, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I didn't notice this section first, but I have already re-added it. I noticed this article after Waingortin made a report on the COI notice board. I'm not really sure what BLP has to do with it, but there are sources regarding the general relationship between the two companies. *shrug* -- Ned Scott 07:19, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Please read WP:Synthesis. You're jumping through hoops to show connections that are not already pointed out in print, by others:

Synthesizing material occurs when an editor comes to a conclusion by putting together different sources. If the sources cited do not explicitly reach the same conclusion, or if the sources cited are not directly related to the subject of the article, then the editor is engaged in original research.

Are you also going to make a table of leading former Claria people who *do not* work at NebuAd, to ensure balance? I think a sentence or two in the text about this matter is the most that could be justified. The Register article that you cite as Ref 28, [1], surely makes any point that needs making here. EdJohnston (talk) 14:02, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm still not seeing it as a synth issue (or even as a NPOV issue), but I would be fine with cutting the table out and instead just mentioning a few names as examples in a sentence or two. Whatever it is, it's certainly not a BLP issue. -- Ned Scott 05:18, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

It should also be noted that several of the people listed in the table are no longer employees: Due to Congress' deferring judgement on DPI, NebuAd's business dried up (as the article notes: no ISPs are known to currently use NebuAd) and the company laid off 40% of their workforce in July 2008. Several people listed in the table were affected. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.197.87.253 (talk) 18:00, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

ISPs using NebuAd

The last sentence of the 2nd paragraph reads "As of Sept. 1, 2008, no ISP is known to be using NebuAd. [6]" However, the last section which is called "NebuAd's ISP Partners", lists ten "ISPs trialing or deploying, or preparing to deploy Nebuad..." After following the citations for some of these ISPs, it appears that they ARE using NebuAd's data collection services as detailed in these ISPs privacy policies. I am therefore removing the sentences saying ISPs are not using NebuAd.Ksensenig (talk) 00:43, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

It Lives

30 January 2011... NebuAD, Inc is back. They're spamming my comp every few seconds. PeerBlock 1.1 steadily blocking them. Guess they're done with their "restructuring" now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.228.48.165 (talk) 01:36, 31 January 2011 (UTC)