Talk:AllAdvantage

AGLOCO

What the heck is going on? Is this page going to have to be protected? blahpers 17:15, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

• • What happened? Beltz 03:58, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Probably. Other corners of the web are starting to point to this article as proof that agloco isn't a scam.

A few ne'er-do-wells seem to think they can promote AGLOCO by posting their referral link in the AllAdvantage article. Any abuse should be reported to abuse@agloco.com, where the offender's account will be subject to enforcement of the AGLOCO anti-spam policy. I recently added a comment to the page code warning not to abuse the article and it seems to be effective thus far. Hopefully this will be the end of it... Rayeverettchurch 23:51, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Most positive article I've ever read

This entire article was obviously written by someone with a financial interest in the company and the new spin-off. This article is being used ( eg pointed to ) around the web to promote agloco. The glowingly positive article on alladvantage ( they really invented everything good on the internet? ) has been used to spam every corner of the web.

Proof of the glaring failure of Wikipedia. They've nofollowed all their links to make themselves a less attractive spam target, and the spammers have outsmarted them. Wikipedia is now the choice distributor of corporate disinformation, and referred back to as evidence that whatever scam is being promoted, actually isn't a spam. Scumbags and spammers around the net have turned Wikipedia into an accomplice for their deception.

Bringing a neutral point of view to this article would be a good way to reverse the tide, even if it would amount to a drop in the bucket. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.216.188.161 (talk) 21:00, 22 March 2007 (UTC).

• Hmm, it's heavily documented and footnoted. If you've got an opposing view, find some references or evidence to support your position and go for it. But slinging around hyperbolic accusations doesn't make for a compelling counterargument. YMMV. 71.202.85.253 23:38, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

• Opposing views/links are deleted ... presumably by AGLOCO employees. An attempt to create an AGLOCO page was unsuccessful. It looks like Wikipedia is getting worked over by "reputation managers". 75.74.197.98 06:45, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

A section has been started on AGLOCO (in this article) that is all of one sentence. Expand on the section with reliable sources and then we can talk about separating it into its own article. --I already forgot 07:13, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Quit with the Pyramid Scheme and Spyware stuff

Hey, 71.216.188.161, you've clearly got an ax to grind, but you need to get your facts straight. Try reading the definitions of Pyramid Scheme and Spyware because you'll find that they're not relevant to this article. Paying for referrals is simply not a Pyramid Scheme; the criterion for being a Pyramid Scheme is that new recruits pay the people who referred them into the pyramid, and the defining characteristic is the direction of the money flow.

Similarly, your insistence that AllAdvantage invented spyware is historically incorrect, even before you get to the fact that the Viewbar technology is the antithesis of spyware because it was user initiated and user controlled. (Again, try reading what Spyware really is before you start labeling stuff.) For example, Dash.com's "Dashbar" clickstream monitoring and ad delivery software was introduced several months before AllAdvantage's Viewbar, and Gator's wallet software (which did clickstream monitoring and ad display) came out around the same time as well. In both those cases, the software was permission based as well, so really they don't meet the generally accepted definition of Spyware either. (Gator later changed it's model to remove permission and user control, which did then turn their stuff into spyware.)

Just saying "they invented spyware" and "they were a pyramid scheme" is not only inaccurate, but slides into the realm of intellectual dishonesty, given the actual facts and history at work. So if you're really concerned about balance in Wikipedia articles, you won't achieve it by tossing in incorrect statements. If you want to include a discussion that places terms like Pyramid Scheme and Spyware in their appropriate context, that would probably be a useful addition to the article. But you're not injecting balance when you inject inaccuracy. 24.6.32.179 21:56, 26 March 2007 (UTC)