Talk:Comparison of content-control software and providers

hardware section

This section seems somewhat problematic because there are so many NAT/firewall devices, and most are not bought and/or used for the purpose of web filtering. Yet they have that capability. Your run-of-the-mill WiFi gateway/router has the capability to block IP nos and URLs. The distinction I suppose is if the device has the capability to subscribe to an ongoing human maintained list, and/or has some sort of heuristics to do filtering. But even if the device has that capability, are those devices bought and deployed for that purpose? If they're not already notable for being bought and deployed for that purpose, then their inclusion in this page would serve only as promotion, a violation of WP:NPOV. To decide what should be included will require a bit of research and not just relying on the idea that it's been cut and pasted into this list. Some citations in here would also be useful, to establish a particular hardware device's notability in content-control. I tried to eliminate ones that were obvious to me. I need some help though, in any direction (re-adding or removal).Retran (talk) 09:22, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Why is a hardware section even included on a "software" list page? (araffals 16:28, 22 July 2010 (UTC)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Araffals (talk • contribs)

removal of gateway/firewall/nat software that is not notable for the purpose of content-contol

I am removing hardware and software titles that have been placed in here without having notability as to their content-control features. If you are adding a new one, you should probably cite the reason why its being listed HERE (other than it being promoted as such). If you cite it, it will be easier for me to understand the rationale.Retran (talk) 19:07, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip, Retran. Tried to cite the most recent addition correctly with the product that directly fits into content control, but new to this so I am not sure if there is some additional citing that is needed. Appreciate your comments. LindseyEKerr (talk) 11:50, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi and thanks for contributing. What entry did you add in?, and what was the citation you wanted to use? Maybe you had trouble so you can paste the links in here and let me have a look? Retran (talk) 21:22, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Hello Retran, this article earlier listed SafeSquid, but was removed, most probably because it was tagged with notability concerns. The tag was later removed, after a number of references were added to the page. So I am adding SafeSquid to 'Windows applications' and 'Other'. Sachinpurohit (talk) 11:28, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

What a horribly written/arranged article

I do not know anything about Wikipedia formatting, therefore I'm not of much help, but I just wanted to point out the obvious and say that this article needs better info and structure. Whoever can do it, please do so as soon as possible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DJ FireWire (talk • contribs) 04:25, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

interesting comment but this article's purpose seems to be just to list the notable content-control software titles. The article about content-control is separate. There's not really much else to be done with a list that is obvious to me. Does anyone know of best-of examples for this kind of list which differ from this? Retran (talk) 13:03, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured lists is probably where you want to start if you want examples of what lists should look like to become the list equivalent of Featured Articles. Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 16:39, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I have replaced the content of another page with a redirect to this comparison

Dear Yaakovaryeh:

Thank you for creating List of parental control software. I know you meant well in creating it. However, Comparison of content-control software and providers existed first. I have replaced the former with a redirect to the latter.

Next time, before you create a page about a topic, please search to make sure that there doesn't already exist another page about the same topic.

Yes, I admit that Comparison of content-control software and providers needs lots of work. But my philosophy is: If it needs fixing, fix it. Don't just create a duplicate. The creation of duplicate pages can lead to more problems down the road.

I have put a {{talkback}} template on your talk page to point you here.

All the best, —Unforgettableid (talk) 07:15, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

I believe I was aware of the page (and in fact may have edited it). However, that article is a more general article comparing a broader category of all content control software in general, while this focuses specifically on Parental control software, which is a specific type of content control software. Yaakovaryeh (talk) 08:19, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

It seems to me that the main difference is that parental control software tends to allow setting time restrictions, whereas other content control software doesn't. Am I correct? And if so, perhaps you could simply add a column to the comparison page. You could call the column "Allows setting time restrictions", and you could fill each entry in with "yes", "no", or (if you couldn't determine the answer from your research), "unknown". Does this seem like a reasonable idea? Cheers, —Unforgettableid (talk) 02:03, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Article name?

The name of this article is "Comparison of content-control software and providers", but I don't see much comparison. The lead of the article says "This is a list of content-control software and services." I suggest renaming (moving) the article to "List of content-control software". However, there is already another article with that name that redirects here, so this would be more of a replacement or swap. --Jeff Ogden (W163) (talk) 15:49, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

For Your Eyes Only

After a certain amount of gain with the attention of such service providers giving direct internet access, it is a willful call to behold the truth behind any full given time zones that defy business. As well you know, the software is computer controlled as so much the factory settings. This is because of such download ability found on modern internet computers. The race for video cards and spoofing through the onboard video graphic array can be useful to the ratio a person can do to create useful coincidence and make an impact on the business world. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:301:7751:160:20BA:1749:B66:5FC6 (talk) 14:13, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Some proposed changes

I would like to suggest the inclusion of uKnowKids in the Programs and Services section of this article. uKnowKids has provided parental control and parental monitoring since 2009, and is a notable leader in the parental control and parental monitoring markets

| uKnowKids || Client + Cloud Service||Windows, Mac OS, IOS, and Android||Parental intelligence and parental monitoring for iOS mobile devices, Android devices, and social media |No |No |$10/mo or $100/yr or $180/lifetime

I would also like to suggest the inclusion of uKnow.com in the Providers section of this article. uKnow.com is the parent company of uKnowKids and has powered numerous parental control and monitoring services including uKnowKids, FamilySense by XFINITY , and KidSafe.

• uKnow.com

COI notice: Please note that this proposed change is being suggested by an executive at uKnow.com and uKnowKids. Thank you in advance for your thoughtful consideration. Swoda (talk) 20:12, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi Swoda, and thank you for your suggestions. Many list articles on Wikipedia have the implicit requirement that any listed item must have a standalone article on Wikipedia. Since that is true for every single software currently listed on this page, I believe that the implicit requirement does apply as a precedent for this particular page. Therefore, uKnowKids needs to have its own article—and pass editor scrutiny for the topic's notability—before it can be listed here. Altamel (talk) 04:54, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

References

K9 Is No Longer Supported

Although the website still exists, and you can still sign up and download the software, K9 is dead. Key parts of the website no longer exist, which you'll find if you actually browse through it, but the biggest problem is that the database is not only no longer updated - it no longer exists. I know this is true because I downloaded and installed the software, and that is when I found out there is no database. It doesn't do anything without that! I don't have my password with me so I can't log on.2600:1702:1610:5620:15E7:3CAE:6977:68DB (talk) 18:32, 6 April 2018 (UTC)ReveurGAM (talk) 00:31, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Please see my notes on the K9 page. This product is dead and should probably be removed from the table as the cloud databases don't exist.ReveurGAM (talk) 00:31, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Explanation: I downloaded and installed K9 Web Protection in March 2018 in order to test it as I needed such software for my kids. I noticed that some parts of the website were non-existent, and that the cloud databases that provide the information needed to protect my kids were absent, such as the filtering of bad/dangerous websites. Although built-in protection may still function, an important part of the protection - that which is web-based - does nothing because the databases have been deleted from the web. After that, I emailed to get support for K9; no response, so I uninstalled it.

Last Thursday, I called Symantec support and they said they don't handle support of K9, and that I had to call Blue Coat; so I called BC but no one picked up, and I left voicemail. They didn't call back. It has been suggested that Blue Coat/Symantec don't care because Symantec has their own product.

Blue Coat was purchased and folded into Symantec in 2016. In fact, two of its leaders became CEO and COO of Symantec. I posted on Bleeping Computer in June 2018, asking that someone independently verify my findings and post an article, but no one took up the gauntlet. I just reposted the request today.ReveurGAM (talk) 01:47, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

I am not completely sure about the best approach for defunct entries: the handling in different lists is all over the place. Some have a separate "Defunct X" section, some just mark the entry as defunct (as currently noted for K9 in the "Cost" section). Some outright remove the entry altogether although this is the worst alternative in my opinion. Just because a software is defunct, its article still includes relevant historical information for readers. I'll move the "defunct" bit to the first column to make the status a bit clearer for now, but the status change of K9 should be based on a published reliable source. GermanJoe (talk) 14:59, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

@GermanJoe:, I added some notes ("Explanation") above. Thank you for the adjustment you made to the entry. I agree that defunct software should still be listed because otherwise main articles eventually become orphaned due to lack of awareness. There are no published resources, unfortunately, detailing what I explained above. Is there somewhere or something else I should add? As much as I'd like to be able to find an external article about K9 being unsupported, no one seems to have noticed and prepared an article other than myself on external sites, and other editors a few years ago noted some trouble. It seems I was the first? to notice the lack of databases.

I can't link to my own research. I COULD, however, write an article, say on my Steemit account, detailing the problem with K9, so that you (for example) could reference it. If someone else uses my research, then it's not original. I am an IT person, so it's not like I'm not qualified. I would even be willing to redo my testing. I found a 2018 review of K9, but the reviewer didn't notice the problem: https://www.topattack.com/list/k9-web-protection-review/74 with an overall rating of 5.77/10, and the score is that high almost exclusively because of non-security components of the software getting high scores.

Given that K9 is a popular FREE product (the Blue Coat website says it's no longer for sale but the free version can still be downloaded) that is still used by a large number of people, and that Symantec takes no responsibility for supporting K9, and Blue Coat doesn't respond to queries and has taken down the databases and some parts of their website, yet left their website running without making the public aware that the software is not supported and doesn't provide the promised protection, don't you think it is important for something to be done?

Please note that the Blue Coat article indicates that Symantec bought it and it was "folded into" Symantec, with two leaders of Blue Coat becoming CEO and COO of Symantec, but it makes no indication that K9 products are no longer supported.

ReveurGAM (talk) 01:47, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

With most of my comments available at my user talk (I'll summarize them here too if needed, but would like to avoid a complete duplicate), I have posted a request for additional feedback from other knowledgeable editors at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Software. To avoid a 1:1 discussion, this question and the KSK thread below would benefit from fresh input from uninvolved editors. Let's give it a bit of time, and wait for other interested editors to chime in. GermanJoe (talk) 02:23, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

@GermanJoe: Great idea! (ReveurGAM signed: ReveurGAM (talk) 22:53, 20 April 2019 (UTC))

It's now official: announcement. K9 is dead. @GermanJoe: ReveurGAM (talk) 22:53, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Kaspersky Safe Kids

@GermanJoe: Copying from our discussion on your talk page...

• Don't you think it would've been better to leave KSK in there and replace the external link with an internal link (that would be red), like this: Kaspersky Safe Kids?
• I also think it's better this way because KSK is a product with a lot of positive reviews.
• That no one has written an article about it shouldn't cause it to be excluded, should it?
• Maybe that'll encourage someone to write a main article for KSK, since I have neither the time nor the inclination despite being in IT.

Kaspersky's page for KSK: https://usa.kaspersky.com/safe-kids

Reviews: https://medium.com/@aeremin/kaspersky-safe-kids-id-rather-they-didn-t-7996c0971e58 (negative review by Russian software developer) https://securitygladiators.com/kaspersky-safe-kids/ (positive review) https://versusreviews.com/parental-controls/compare/kaspersky-safe-kids/to/net-nanny/ (comparison with Net Nanny, favoring NN) https://www.comparitech.com/parental-control/reviews/kaspersky-safe-kids-review/ (positive review) https://www.av-comparatives.org/tests/parental-control-review-2018-kaspersky-safe-kids-premium/ (professional review by AV Comparatives)

I ignored PC Mag because they are for sale. Is that enough?ReveurGAM (talk) 01:51, 20 August 2018 (UTC)