Talk:Tagged (website)
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Tagged (website) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4Auto-archiving period: 3 months  |
 | The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
Q1: Why does this talk page have a FAQ?
A1: Some questions have been brought up repeatedly on this talk page, which has become lengthy and has an archive. This FAQ attempts to summarize previous responses to some of these questions to save people having to give the same answers over and over, and to serve as a reference point for anyone interested in improving this article. Q2: Why does this article have so much negative material?
A2: Wikipedia's policy on neutrality states we must "fairly [represent] all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint." Although there has been positive coverage of Tagged in the technology press – and this is reflected in the article – coverage in the mainstream press, including Time,[1] The New York Times,[2] and The Washington Post,[3] has been negative in the past.
Relevant Wikipedia policy:
Q3: Why is this article more negative than other articles on social networking sites?
A3: In addition to the above, there are several lines of evidence that Tagged, in the past, has encountered more controversy than other social networking sites.
Q4: Why are the controversies mentioned in the lead?
A4: Wikipedia's guideline on lead sections states, "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should... summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies. The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources..." It also states, "the lead... should not "tease" the reader by hinting at—but not explaining—important facts that will appear later in the article." There is an active debate on the merits of the interpretation of the guidelines and some editors disagree with the current lead claiming it is not consistent with other social networking articles and appears to be biased by a few editors.
Relevant Wikipedia guideline: Q5: Why is everyone around here so suspicious?
A5: In June 2009, 64.125.137.10 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) repeatedly and anonymously removed referenced negative material from this article. This IP address was subsequently found to be registered to Tagged.com. Around the same time, several IP addresses and apparent single purpose accounts edited Wikipedia solely to remove or downplay criticism of Tagged (examples: Maryloffers (talk · contribs), Maryisback (talk · contribs), Ellismrtn321 (talk · contribs), 76.204.193.121 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)). This lead to the article being semi-protected to prevent edits from unregistered contributors or new accounts. Then MarinaKSF (talk · contribs) stated she was approached by Tagged to assist them in "balancing the tone" of the article.
Be it positive or negative, Wikipedia contributors are strongly discouraged from editing when they have a conflict of interest. They are also strongly encouraged to declare any interests, both on their user pages and on the talk pages of relevant articles. All contributors are expected to remain civil toward everyone and especially to be patient and kind toward new contributors. Relevant Wikipedia guideline: References
|
 | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.svg){kind=icon}
Question for Tagged Editors - Inc Case Study on Tagged edit
Hi everyone. I came across this article in INC regarding the Tagged 2009 email invitation spam incident. I think it sheds new light and Tagged's side of the story on the matter and it is from a credible source too. I am wondering if anyone else had seen it and what you thought about referencing it for the Tagged article.
http://www.inc.com/magazine/20110401/case-study-battling-a-media-and-legal-firestorm.html
As I know this is a sensitive topic - I thought I would start here on "Talk". thanks Goalloverhere (talk) 21:48, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, I would say this looks like a useful source. As long as it's clear that the information is their side of the story, I would support including some of it. Brettalan (talk) 04:08, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
- What an outrageous article. The problems did not begin with a new registration process that went live in June 2009. Just look at this article from Consumer Fraud Reporting warning against these very same emails back in January 2008. The article's claim that "Coping with crisis was a new experience for Tseng, who had known little but success in his brief time as an entrepreneur" is simply nonsense, given that JumpStart copped the largest ever fine for spam in 2006 while Tseng was CEO, and that he was publicly named and shamed over the CrushLink scam as early as 2002. Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 16:04, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for the input and consideration. I'll give it some additional thought. Goalloverhere (talk) 18:07, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
- Brettalan - thank you for the consideration and recognition that this is a reasonable and good source and provides additional perspective on the company and this particular issue. Adrian - with all due respect - and I am sincere when I say that because you are a committed and talented long time editor - your comments are troubling as it really appears that you have some kind of vendetta against Tagged and their founder. I don't think Wikipedia is supposed to be used as some kind of instrument to inflict punishment. Especially using such non notable sourcing and coverage as you cite in these particular examples some going back 10 years from a single article - not a lot of coverage whatsoever. The definition of what constitutes notability has always been a concern for me with this article as you may recall. Goalloverhere (talk) 18:24, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
- And here I thought we had gotten past ad hominem attacks. Goalloverhere - pointing out inaccuracies of what appears to be a puff piece is not "some kind of vendetta". If you do bring in that article, you can reasonable expect that reliable source that contradict the article will be given equal weight. Ucanlookitup (talk) 23:46, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
- Brettalan - thank you for the consideration and recognition that this is a reasonable and good source and provides additional perspective on the company and this particular issue. Adrian - with all due respect - and I am sincere when I say that because you are a committed and talented long time editor - your comments are troubling as it really appears that you have some kind of vendetta against Tagged and their founder. I don't think Wikipedia is supposed to be used as some kind of instrument to inflict punishment. Especially using such non notable sourcing and coverage as you cite in these particular examples some going back 10 years from a single article - not a lot of coverage whatsoever. The definition of what constitutes notability has always been a concern for me with this article as you may recall. Goalloverhere (talk) 18:24, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
- Goal, at the risk of you wanting to take back what you said about my consideration and such, I think it's perfectly valid for Adrian to point out that the source seems to be unreliable. And I certainly don't see why you have to bring up the issue of notability again. That said, I think the article can still be used in a limited fashion to show Tagged's side of the story, focusing on direct quotes from the company. Brettalan (talk) 04:44, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
- Brettalan - not going to take anything back at all - appreciate your consideration and point of view. Ucanlookitup - I have no intent in an "ad hominem attack" - just pointing out an opinion much like all of us do on this article. Calling the article "outrageous" and a "puff piece" seems like an attack of its own. I have added the citation to the lead of the article and also added a sentence to the Bulk Mail section as well and hope this will be ok with everyone. Thank you. Goalloverhere (talk) 18:43, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
- This is not a borderline case. An article whose two major contentions are demonstrably false is not a reliable source and should not be given false credibility by citation in an encyclopedia article. Brettalan – I understand what you're saying about using the article to show Tagged's response, but I don't see how we could do that without either misleading readers with false information or violating WP:SYNTH. Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 15:14, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
- Brettalan - not going to take anything back at all - appreciate your consideration and point of view. Ucanlookitup - I have no intent in an "ad hominem attack" - just pointing out an opinion much like all of us do on this article. Calling the article "outrageous" and a "puff piece" seems like an attack of its own. I have added the citation to the lead of the article and also added a sentence to the Bulk Mail section as well and hope this will be ok with everyone. Thank you. Goalloverhere (talk) 18:43, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
- Adrian - can you please clarify your position on this? I do not see how you should be judging on this matter in terms of what you consider false in an article from a credible publication. Thank you.Goalloverhere (talk) 15:37, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
- Adrian - after additional consideration I agree this is not borderline - it is clear that a credible source reported on the incident and provided additional details helpful to the reader. Therefore I have undone your edit. Goalloverhere (talk) 00:26, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
Tagged support team edit
When you submit contact ticket they respond every time in formal manner without actual help\interaction. This is the only sign of real state of business. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.237.196.55 (talk) 08:12, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
External links modified edit
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Tagged. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080704181155/http://www.aotalliance.org/summit2007/speakers2007.html to http://www.aotalliance.org/summit2007/speakers2007.html#Greg_Tseng
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081007145254/http://sanjose.bizjournals.com:80/eastbay/stories/2007/04/23/daily41.html?jst=s_cn_hl to http://sanjose.bizjournals.com/eastbay/stories/2007/04/23/daily41.html?jst=s_cn_hl
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
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: 18 January 2022).
- 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 22:08, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
Requested move 30 August 2020 edit
- The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The result of the move request was: Consensus to move page and then disambiguate Tagged. (non-admin closure) — YoungForever(talk) 23:43, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
Tagged → Tagged (website) – The page views show that Tagged (web series) has around the same views, if not more (looking at the identical curves it would seem that the website is getting hits meant for the web series). Since neither is a primary, this should disambiguated. Gonnym (talk) 23:36, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
- Support per nom, DAB at base name.--Ortizesp (talk) 13:48, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
- Support DAB at base name In ictu oculi (talk) 19:55, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
- Support per nom. No clear primary topic. Create disambiguation page at basename. Paintspot Infez (talk) 21:19, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
- Support a disambiguation page. cookie monster (2020) 755 23:16, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
- Support per nom and include a link to Tag. Crouch, Swale (talk) 11:57, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
I have tried to voice a concern but you block it because it's the truth & you can not handle it edit
Clean your site up from all the scammers you let on tagged I just recieved a message on tagged by someone saying there from tagged & that I won $850,000.00 & to contact them on a email address I responded over tagged & not there email site telling them if this was not a scam then I want to talk to a tagged representative & they removed there message from tagged before I could write it down you dont do a very good job on making this site good for people who are truly looking for love you let women put nude photos over tagged but when I tell these women what I think of them you block me so get it right & clean your site because it is a big joke 49.182.87.170 (talk) 11:46, 22 April 2022 (UTC)