Talk:Tagged.com
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
Make sure to supply full citations when adding information and consider tagging or removing uncited/unciteable information. |
[edit] Notes
I just added a "Controversy" section to document problems with Tagged.com's information security process. I realize I've failed to add any formal documentation. I'd appreciate it if someone else would find some of the links I mentioned and add references to them. I have a screen-capture of the registration process to post in support of the assertions I've made, but I want to redact personal information before I post it. Wolfrick 05:01, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Tagged.com is clearly editing this page to remove criticism. it would be nice if this page could be protected. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 32.97.110.142 (talk) 22:13, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
I had a bad experience with Tagged.com, too. They sent me an "invitation" supposedly from a friend, but this friend (who really exists), never sent me an invitation. He got a similar email from a friend and made the mistake to reveal his email password. What happened next, Tagged spied out his mail box and got my email address, as all the other email addresses of my friend's contact list. Everyone in the contact list got "invitations" without my friend's authorization, even without him knowing. During the "registration process" supposedly in order for me to read the message that my friend wrote me (he didn't write a message), Tagged wanted to make me type in my password from my hotmail account, which I, of course, didn't do. I just want to warn other people not to put theirselfes into danger and reveal their passwords to this phishing website. This is password phishing and nothing else. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wilddumpling (talk • contribs) 04:34, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
NOTE: The article reads as though it was written by a PR firm paid by tagged.com. I would question its objectivity. - unsigned, January 15, 2007. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.210.91.81 (talk) 23:10, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Just a note when you search for "tagged" it redirects you to the "tag" page. There is no mention of tagged.com on the "tag" page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.138.164.195 (talk) 23:54, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Here are a few links explaining the way Tagged.com works. If not considered a social networking site, the site can be considered a phishing site, as it asks future users to submit both their personal login and password of several webmail services to Tagged.com. When you read their Terms of Service it becomes clear that this is far from innocent. Read for yourself:
http://www.symantec.com/enterprise/security_response/weblog/2007/04/spam_meets_web_20.html http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Security/Harvesting-Teenagers/ http://www.authenticationworld.com/blog/2007/04/harvesting_teenager_ids_and_ph.html
Scary! Even scarier, after accessing the mailbox of a new user of their "services", they send out mail to the owners of ALL addresses found in that mailbox. The mail contains a so called 'webbug' (tagged image). When the recipient of such an invitation opens the message and has the image displayed, Tagged will have a confirmation of the validity of that new address as well. WITHOUT the owner of that email address confirming to agree to have his email address included in that database. The whole way the site works makes one doubt if clicking the 'unsubscribe' link at the bottom of the invitation mail is worth clicking. It may be better to feed the network address block of their mailserver to ones spamfilter... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.129.202.130 (talk) 16:19, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
I've had bad experiences with this site too, but to the point; everything negative has been repeatedly removed from this page, even when well sourced. Clearly the company doesn't want any bad publicity. The only way to keep this article balanced is to lock it. I would ask a mod to do it, if I had any idea how.Ssyme (talk) 13:23, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't think the company would give an ounce of care what anybody thinks on Wikipedia because there is no such things as bad publicity. The 30,000,000+ users can speak for themselves, so if you want to make a bolder statement, you are better off just avoiding the site that gets you so angry. Like I said, you're just fueling publicity. I keep deleting what you write because it is incorrect. I CAN tell you that you have to select your friends before an email is sent to them. So you are wrong about that. I also can tell you that Facebook and Myspace (as well as many MANY others) do the same thing with emailing lists so it seems to be commonplace among social networks now. Yeah, I agree that it sucks. But it is the way it is. Build your own social network if you want one that doesn't invade your privacy. Last I checked Rupert Murdoch was the king of invasion. Not these guys. Also, the articles you posted to back up your phishing lies?stories?ideas? are from bloggers' websites. They are not backed up by fact or even people who know what it means to run a social networking business. They are not from credible publications. Opinions are open to discussion- that is what makes America great. But take some initiative and really research the issue before you post things that are simply untrue.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Reddaisychild (talk • contribs) 23:07, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Symantec is a reputable organization and highly respected for their research into adware, viruses, phishing, and spyware. What they say about this subject matter carries significant weight. --Thomasdelbert (talk) 23:49, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
If the company doesn't care, why do they keep editing it? if you run a whois in the IPs making changes they're all up in the bay area, and some are even associated with Jumpstart, tagged.com's parent company. I wouldn't be suprised if Reddaisychild was one of the CEOs themselves. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.112.19.93 (talk) 04:35, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
I can go on record and say that I am certainly NOT working for Tagged, nor have I ever worked for them in the past. There are a lot of things on Wikipedia that are simply untrue. I find it unfortunate that someone would continue to write things that are of this false nature despite Wikipedia giving the general public the privilege of doing so. I will respect that and, if phishing and spamming are in fact the goals of Tagged, I will be the first to change my opinion. I have yet to see proof of this however. I will continue to show another point of view not because I am trying to protect anybody, but rather because accusing a company of stealing information is a rather large accusation to make publicly when information given on this social network seems to have been given at the full consent of the user. My best advice to someone who does not agree with the way this social network is run, is to simply not use it. All social networks demand a certain amount of exercised caution on behalf of the user, be it Myspace, Facebook, Friendster, etc. But to make false accusations about a person's identity, involvement, or action is in no way my goal. Nor should it be yours. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Reddaisychild (talk • contribs) 23:29, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- Hiya folks. Just a reminder to please see the WP:NPOV policy and keep it in mind before editing. Also, keep the conversation cool and no accusing others of being corporate shills. Thanks. :) ~Kylu (u|t) 05:18, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Have to agree with the majority of the comments and conclude that Tagged.com must be spending some effort in removing anything from Wikipedia they don't like. I made a very simple change, changing a simple line like "since ... Tagged has been featured on several sites [1],[2],[3]" (containing only links to positive reviews) adding just one more reference: a number [4] linking to the article on the Symantec Security. Even that change, the most subtle way to show there are two sites of this medal, was removed (although, as was my intention, it stayed there much longer than the less subtle criticisms made by others). That can only be seen as part of an ongoing attempt to avoid any criticism to this site to come to the surface.
For any article on Wikipedia to maintain credibility, it cannot be that any **documented** critic is removed constantly. Thus I agree this article better be kept locked. So whatever your motives, Reddaisychild, it is legitimate to be positive about tagged.com and to defend them, but it can not be seen as legitimate to continuously remove any critical notes on this topic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.27.212.181 (talk) 17:27, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
'hmmmmmm....IMPRESSIVE NUMBERS BEING REPORTED. Question folks: IS IT POSSIBLE THAT THE # OF USERS BEING REPORTED BY TAGGED MAY BE LARGELY COMPRISED OF UNKNOWING/UNAUTHORIZED/UNWANTED 'SIGNUPS' (x EVERYONE IN YOUR ADDRESS BOOK ~ x EVERYONE IN THE ADDRESS BOOKS OF EVERY EMAIL ADDY PILPHERED FROM YOU (ME!!!) AND SO ON, AND SO ON. ADDS UP PRETTY FAST. THEIR NUMBERS ARE LIKELY ACCURATE. HOW CAN WE SHUT THESE PUNKS DOWN PEOPLE??????? 75.15.218.139 (talk) 11:01, 16 April 2008 (UTC) Bold text== SPAM == After a friend sent me an invite to 'Tagged' and I singed up, I began recieving 40-50 spam emails every day. Very few person know about the email address I used and it never received spam before. I know for a fact it was Tagged doing it because I had used a fake name to sign up and the Spam emails used the fake name in the subject. What did I do? I simply redirected my email to all the contact addresses listed for tagged and stopped using it. I considered signing THEM up to some spam....but then I'm not a criminal like them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.194.145.168 (talk) 23:34, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Is there any sign that authorities are investigating tagged.com? Because it's obviously a criminal organisation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Omargard123 (talk • contribs) 17:23, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
