Talk:Web Bot/Archive 1

References

Some of the sources for the predictions are from blog sites or from the site urbansurvival.com (which was created by the "promoter" of the web bot project George Ure) because specific details about the predictions could not be found. However, some are from legitimate news sites such as The Daily Telegraph, The Jerusalem Post, and Express India. If someone knows of a more reliable source which discusses the predictions, please include it as a reference. Kylelovesyou (talk) 22:37, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Pseudoscience

This falls under pseudoscience, and in some instances such as the ability to predict future catastrophes, outright fraud. There are descriptions of pseudoscientific claims in this article which are not labelled as such. --TS 19:47, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I tend to agree, however, many of the web bot claims are properly referenced as being the opinions of either the creators or believers of the Web Bot claims, what this article really needs is commentary by sources critical of this topic. I am adding nnpov tags. Voiceofreason01 (talk) 20:13, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

What purpose is there to slapping on the NPOV tag? The article is hardly lauding the project as it stands. If you want sources, go find sources. I agree that this is pseudoscience, but we work using sources and not our own opinions, remember? Fences&Windows 01:52, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

This is no science, that's correct. But I have followed their project and they were correct many times (although many also wrong), to be simply dismissed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.240.120.45 (talk) 17:42, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but the Colombia accident wasn't a "prediction" it was only "deduced" after the fact and the link used to support it actually proves me right! Here is an excerpt from the link, "More recently, in January of 2003 the web bots were going on and on about a "maritime disaster" - which didn't make any sense to us, UNTIL the Space Shuttle Columbia disaster hit. Columbia wasn't a gem of the ocean, it was a space ship". The prediction was revealed after the fact not before! I don't care if a machine pops out some gobblety goop before something happens if you can't interpret it until after the fact then it isn't a prediction! The reason they couldn't figure it out is because the Space Shuttle isn't the first thing that comes to mind when you say maritime disaster. And to the best of my knowledge the Colombia disaster wasn't investigated as a maritime disaster nor is NASA a maritime organization. And yes, I do know many Astronauts were former naval aviators (Colombia pilot included) but if they are flying a civilian space vehicle that disintegrated over land it hardly rates as a maritime disaster. What happens if the same man wrecked a school bus would that be a "maritime disaster" by virtue of his rank? Web Bot is BS it can't help humans predict the future it can only predict the past and it can only do that if you have a VERY open mind. I challenge anyone to produce a web link or video dated before 9/11 with Web Bot predictions about 9/11. The first mention I could find about this "prediction" is 2003. In my opinion the "Claimed Hits" section should be counter-pointed when the claims are found not to be actual predictions. I will begin to do this myself with my Space Shuttle example unless someone can give me a good reason why I shouldn't within the next 30 days.Impact Hazard (talk) 20:29, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

We need good sources for the "claims" section, and this kind of 'prediction' is exactly why. You're right, this sort of claim to prediction that can only be worked out once the event has occurred is the same kind of nonsense that Nostradamus fans come out with. Fences&Windows 23:51, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Merge with 2012 phenomenon

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was no move. Voiceofreason01 (talk) 22:11, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

An editor over at Talk:2012 phenomenon has found an article on the web bot project from the Daily Telegraph that goes into most of the salient points. I think this article can be reduced to one or two well-sourced sentences and moved over there, rather than kept in its current sprawling mess of a state reliant on primary sources. Serendi^podous 14:37, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Tentative support On the one hand Web Bot has given more than just 2012 predictions, on the other hand Web Bot only seems to be notable for its 2012 predictions, there don't seem to be many reliable sources for the Web Bot article and everything I read about Web Bot makes it sound more and more like a scam. Voiceofreason01 (talk) 18:12, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, the web bot is more than just something that predicted a 2012 phenomenon. I think it deserves its own article as it has been mentioned by reputable sources and has been discussed on the History Channel. Also it has gained some notoriety on the internet and especially in conspiracy circles. It does seem much like a scam and that should probably be mentioned somewhere in the article. Also, does the "unreliable sources" tag need to be in the article three times? Kylelovesyou (talk) 19:49, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me that web bot is probably just riding off all the other 2012 predictions. Although, if the web bot is a real program that works as the creators say it does (tracking keywords on the internet), then it would predict the end of the world on 21 December 2012 because people are searching it and writing about 2012 online. Kylelovesyou (talk) 19:49, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I have not been able to find any new reliable sources. I have concerns with even our existing "reliable" sources. All three seem to have been written from the same source, I suspect they're all rewrites of an article or interview conducted by AP or another service that provides articles to newspapers. This seems especially likely due to the similarities in language used by all three, since all three use the same quotations and since the Daily Telegraph and India Express articles were published only one day apart. Further muddying the waters, the Jeruselem Post article is an op-ed piece. So instead of three reliable sources we really only have one. Which creates some notability issues. Adding to that the fact that the India Express and Daily Telegraph articles are mainly about 2012 I think merging this article may be in order. Voiceofreason01 (talk) 12:37, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't want to see this page die. 76.30.146.194 (talk) 19:41, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

This isn't a deletion request. Just a request for the material to be trimmed and merged into a larger article. Serendi^podous 20:42, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd say this is enough consensus and you should go ahead and do it. Voiceofreason01 (talk) 18:39, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

• The History Channel, India Express, Globe and Mail, Jerusalem Post and Daily Telegraph have all given this project coverage. Whether it is a scam or not doesn't affect its notability. Things that are crackpot, crazy and downright wrong can and should be covered by Wikipedia. As for merging, the bulk of the article and what has been written about it isn't to do with the idea of the world ending on 2012, so much of the material would not sit easily if merged. Merging is a poor way to deal with this content, in my view. Fences&Windows 22:50, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree. I am not sure how notable web bot is, but the History Channel does give it notability as well as the news articles (even if most of them are rewrites of other articles). And if the page were merged, the only things that could be kept would be the "methodology" section and the 2012 prediction. Nothing else in this article would fit in the "2012 Phenomenon" page.

I have no problem with keeping the page but it still needs some work and needs to be watched to keep the POV stuff off. Voiceofreason01 (talk) 22:35, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

• So has it been decided that the pages will not be merged? If so the merge suggestion needs to be deleted. Kylelovesyou (talk) 17:57, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Not deleted, closed off. Takes an admin to do that. Serendi^podous 19:29, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

• I'd rather this article be kept an article, and not merged with the 2012 one. It's entirely notable enough to have it's own I would think. --Mark0528 (talk) 19:17, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

the consensus seems to be with keeping the article, we're just waiting for an admin to close the merge. Voiceofreason01 (talk) 19:37, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I feel this article needs to stand alone because the fraud perpetrated by this subject encompasses more than 2012 and it may last beyond the 2012 hysteria.Impact Hazard (talk) 21:05, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

time to prove that the 10-25-09 prediction is wrong

It predicted something bad would happen today but best to my knowledge nothing has happened it's just been an ordinally day —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thesonicfanofalltime (talk • contribs) 19:49, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, there was a double car bombing in Iraq that killed nearly 150 people and injured 265 more.TheGary (talk) 23:18, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

But the Obama administration was supposed to be "thrown into disarray", which really didn't happen...75.67.47.56 (talk) 01:59, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Not that I buy it personally, but see urbansurvival.com. [1] Also, it's my understanding that the actual "disarray" is supposed to occur within the next ten days. 69.139.175.204 (talk) 20:23, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

besides that was merely a condidence cause that wasn't the prediction the prediction was that either the h1n1 would become a national threat or the collapse of the u.s. dollar or Iran being Bombed not Iraq —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.89.132.106 (talk) 02:13, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

It is still october 25 in many parts of the world. Swine flu was declared national emergency by Obama on 23rd(?), and this news is disseminated over the weekend of the 25th. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.130.139.97 (talk) 03:35, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

i wanna know where this webbot gets its info, does it browse conspiracy websites?, the CIA knew of the attackers intentions well before 9/11 but failed to tell anyone. (204.77.219.90 (talk) 04:46, 26 October 2009 (UTC))

the webbot gets its info by scouring the internet for keywords not reading conspiracy sites. its a computer program - read the methodology section. And the CIA knowing about 9/11 does not mean it was a conspiracy. See: Bin Ladin Determined To Strike in US - Kylelovesyou (talk) 00:25, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Can everyone stem the speculation and wait until reliable sources give a discussion of this prediction? Thanks. Fences&Windows 02:36, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

• Many blogs have discussed it with some possible explanations of what it might be but most people writing on the blogs agree that nothing happened. I wouldn't hold your breath for any reliable sources - none mentioned it before. I think this will be limited to blogs and conspiracy sites. It is also important to mention that there have been many many predictions by the web bot that have not come true. The actual percentage of predictions represented here is very low in relation to the total number that it has made. More predictions can be found on conspiracy sites and blog sites and none have come true. blog post listing of predictions for 2009

In fact, this article seems to lead a reader that the web bot has more hits vs. misses when in fact it has predicted several several more predictions that have missed that are not in this article. This happens for two reasons: 1.reliable sources about the web bot are hard to find and 2.blog and conspiracy sites and the web bot actual sites (urbansurvival.com andhalfpasthuman.com) tend to show the correct predictions while downplaying the incorrect predictions.

There is also a major prediction for November 5th. Creator Cliff High says the US will find itself in "very dire set of circumstances" on Nov 5. youtube link to interview - Kylelovesyou (talk) 03:06, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

well today is november 5th and notning hasd happened —Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.185.57.19 (talk) 19:09, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Today's the Ninth, and nada. Voiceofreason01 (talk) 19:38, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

> In my opinion, October 25th was a hit. It was supposed to showcase something very subtle which would grow more and more into our consciousnesses till late November or whenever. I believe the data refers to H1N1 "pandemic" and the H1N1 "national emergency" Obama announced was the correlated story in the media that day. I believe there were references to "ill winds" in the webbot reports? Whatever Oct.25th held was supposed to emerge into the minds of GlobalPop so that within a week or so everyone would be talking about it... and in my experience living in Southern Ontario, the H1N1 meme & emotion related to it has simply grown and inflated all around me since that date. Not to mention ongoing issue in Ukraine. could be totally wrong.

This is not a forum. The opinion of editors on hits or misses is not appropriate. Please do not add any further opinions or speculation. <spanstyle="color:red;">Fences&Windows 00:23, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Accuracy of Listed Misses/Hits

Atleast two of the listed misses seem to be debatable. On the 30th of September there was a Tsunami that struck Samoa, killing many. This could be the "global costal event" referenced. And it seems too early to say that events occuring in 2009 will not be the start of a collapse of the U.S. dollar. Without the full text and dates of said predictions, one should not dismiss these predictions. At the least, the subsection title should be changed to 'Claimed Misses'.

I tend to agree with the above comments that some of the misses seem like hits to me... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.112.168.66 (talk) 03:05, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I would argue that the "hits" are all much too vague to claim as actual predictions and the whole project is a shill to bilk gullible people of their money.

Web Bot is fringe and the article should be written skeptically. As long as there are sources to back the "misses" listed in the article they should remain there. Voiceofreason01 (talk) 14:20, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

___________________ I cannot agree with some of the "claimed hits". The predictions are so utterly vaguely formulated that there's too much possibility to interpret them in a way that the predictions match the actual event. It's a little bit like horoscopes. There are a couple of phrases witch you can almost always link in on or the other way to a whole bunch of possible events. In the scientific inquiry we endeavour to do on the accuracy of the web bot project, we should refrain however from interpreting the predictions in a way that they match; in a scientific analysis we should actually refrain from interpreting at all, we should only focus on clear hits and not alleged hits. For example among the "claimed hits", the BP oil spill is listed. In the (rather unprofessional seeming) source we can read: "The oceans are described as being not as before." "the supporting aspect/attributes sets for the oceans being unlike their former selves." Way too vague. That could be almost anything. Farther: Even tough the oil spill is a catastrophe, saying that the oceans are not as their former selves seems quite exaggerated "Ocean changes linked to volcanos" A volcano of oil.. that simply didn't happen, and comparing the spilling oil to a volcano is ridiculous "Indications are many of the problems are related to the core of the planet." Although we consider the depth in which the whole spill happened very deep, we must see that this WASNT even NEAR the earth core

"humans and other life directly impacted by large clouds of drifting complex methane..." Didn't happen

I think, considering the utterly vague formulation, the BP Oil spill cannot be considered a hit anymore. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.2.192.114 (talk) 09:40, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Reading this section, many of the contributors confuse predictions made by the Web-Bot with interpretations of Clif High in the Report, and statements made by Clif High on Radio Shows and other forums. They are different and distinct: Clif High calls his own interpretations "monkey-mind" and invites the reader to also attempt his own interpretations. Statements and interpretations of Clif High are not part of Web-Bot's output. There is a smaple here of the contents of a Shape of things to Come Report http://www.halfpasthuman.com/badfood.html Maccess (talk) 09:28, 6 October 2011 (UTC) Maccess

I would agree that some of the misses seem like hits. Can't someone take a survey or take the appropriate actions and take action? 72.25.65.65 (talk) 18:40, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Alta Report

The actual name should be changed to the Alta report as the Web Bot is just the data machine, but the Alta report has the actual predictions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hendo92 (talk • contribs) 05:01, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Web bot seems to be the more familiar and common name. Alta report now redirects to Web Bot. Voiceofreason01 (talk) 22:23, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Claims of reptilians

Cliff High also seems to have an affinity towards the Reptilian theory, which by its very nature reeks of a tin-foil hat. Would I be allowed to make a note of that? He also seems to use the code-word "Zionist" for "The Jews;" may I make a note of these things? My evidence can be seen on http://www.halfpasthuman.com/wolf.html . 71.194.138.139 (talk)

July 8th

The original prediction said a massive terrorist attack on July 8, but a edit by user 67.162.103.142 on 22 May changed this to, the building of tension language. Do this make sense to anyone? What does that even mean? It is not referenced. Should it be reverted back to it's old edit? TurboGUY (talk) 16:19, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Now it's been changed to July 11. Clarinetguy097 (talk) 20:20, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Now somebody changed it to a "timeline starting in July 11th" - without listing a source —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alnike (talk • contribs) 08:09, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Also, the phrase "A buildup of tension was to begin July 11, but nothing noticeable happened to cause such buildup" has no year associated with it. The correct year should be added along with a source. Tha Pyngwyn (talk) 06:53, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Accuracy?

Hi - I definitely think that this article should quote from the documents/statements that purport to be the actual "predictions", especially in the cases where the project members claim to have been correct (the incorrect guesses for obvious reasons are less important) so that readers can judge how specific/relevant the statements were to the occurrences they claim to have predicted. I would have attempted to make these modifications but all I could find - including in the links at the bottom of this page - were other people's summations/interpretations of the WB project founders' words, not the actual words themselves. It creates the impression that these prophecies are quite accurate, but gives the reader no way to form their own interpretation.

Because this technology is a bit "iffy" to begin with (to say the least, IMO), being able to read their words and see if/how they fit would seem essential. Maybe someone else knows of a better source to find the predictions? 170.20.11.116 (talk) 15:24, 24 June 2010 (UTC)amy

my thoughts

since nothing really happened on july 11 2010 i believe it's safe to assume that nothing'll happen on november 8th too —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.28.193.88 (talk) 23:21, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree. It should be made more clear that it's only predictions, not definite facts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.187.213.40 (talk) 00:04, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I have removed the following edit from the page: "Actually, on July 11, 2010. Racial problems are starting to emerge. Believable or not this day is sounding more like a turning point in the U.S., besides what is already happening in our country. Racial difficulties will become more of a problem for all." This addition does not include citation and is written as opinion. So Much For Subtlety (talk) 10:30, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

---

The bombings on Uganda at 11 July was definitely a fulfillment of the prediction. The fact the Al-Shabab group has Al-Qaeda connections and that they said "What happened in Kampala is just the beginning" only puts more strength to considering this without doubt a hit on the prediction. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Makrea (talk • contribs) 09:22, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

New entry 6 September

"In South America, they'll be large or mass sightings of UFO-related phenomena. In the summer of 2010, a video crew will interview an escapee from an internment facility. The young bald man will later be revealed to be a "non-Terran" human."

Lacks References. What's the origin of this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Makrea (talk • contribs) 18:31, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

¿Misses?

First understand, I am NO fan of “prophesy” as it is being applied today. I’m thoroughly convinced that modern-day prophets are either fools or swindlers. That said, it is premature to assume that the misses section is fully fair to the Web Bot project; Most especially the following sections:

• A complete collapse of the US dollar beginning in 2009; The US Ecomony is in turmoil, so to say this is a “miss” is a bit premature.
• The US dollar completely collapses, or Israel bombs Iran. In reaction to this crisis, administration of U.S. President Barack Obama would have been thrown into major chaos ten days later; Though the second half didn’t happen (that we know of), to say it isn’t going to happen is again premature.

The other sections actually can’t be judged fairly either, but they do have some standing to calle them “failures” or are unclear as to when they would happen. In fact, what specifically caused my attention was “A buildup of tension was to begin July 11, but nothing noticeable happened to cause such buildup.” If we accept 11 July 2Ø1Ø (or earlier) as the date, then accept that the event predicted had to be noticeable globally, then we could say it was a failure. However, no year was given, and the event in question wasn’t clear, so every 11 July for the rest of eternity we’d have to scan every incident, event, action, etc worldwide and then track it for the rest of time. (I call this prediction far too vague to be supported at all.)174.25.121.131 (talk) 05:09, 28 September 2010 (UTC)A REDDSON

The "claimed hits" and "misses" sections are pretty iffy as far as policy goes, really they should all be sourced from notable secondary or tertiary sources, but I think they add a lot to the article and personally I can accept them under WP:IAR as long was we can maintain good balance in the article and can get consensus as to what should be included. Voiceofreason01 (talk) 15:47, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Looking at the "Misses" section, and seeing the Nov 5-14 2010 "tipping point" - the reference given (footnote #19) states that the "tipping point" is not an event, but a beginning of a trend. A more careful reading of this source should have avoided this misplaced "miss" - or at least a subsequent discovery of a more germane source should have taken place. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.215.53.154 (talk) 23:38, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

~~While I do believe there can be legitimacy to tapping the "subconscious" of the internet commmunity, I wonder how date specific that can be. I do take exception to some of the "misses" catalogued in the article. For example, the prediction that the dollar will begin to collapse in 2009 is still alive and well. We weren't properly informed of the recession of 2007 until well afterwards. Even allowing for the government's ability to downplay disturbing information, it is well known that the dollar is not doing well and may decline further. Another example is calling the prediction of Israel bombing of Iran a "miss". I admit an actual bomb was not dropped from a plane or sent there by a missle, but Israel is considered a major contributor to the Stuxnet virus attack on Iran's nuclear infrastructure. Call this a "cyberbomb", if you will. Clif High admits that there is quite a bit of "monkeymind"(his phrase) interpretation that goes into translating what the language shifts are actually saying(flood of water vs.flood of oil). In my opinion a "cyberbomb" is as good as a missle.claimman75 (talk) 17:36, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Bot predictions leave out....

......anything that is in a "positive" or uplifting realm. This, to me is a significant shortcoming of this so-called teller of the future, in that there are never predictions of good things. How about something positive and concrete such as what the Nobel Prize in Chemistry will be awarded for, and to whom? Because the world we live in thrives on sensationalism, and negative press in any form, this seems to be the only "trigger" of emotions on western populations. Anything outside of a catastrophy is simply not noteworthy enough for discussion, or let alone a prediction of coming events. The History Channel runs that episode at least 5 times a year, because it generates a lot of revenue, not because it constitutes "history". 216.36.82.180 (talk) 12:41, 6 October 2010 (UTC)Bot-shit antagonist

Added a sentence about this. The bot predictions have actually indicated positive events such as the development of new technology and increased social awareness. Also indicated the authors' insistence in interviews that the interpretation has an inherent negative bias.

The reports themselves are mostly a context map describing the landscape for noteworthy discussion. Actual predictions take up a relatively small portion of the reports, and are always with the caveat that they are likely blown out of proportion, or completely wrong. Mcmarturano (talk) 23:55, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Temporal Reference Frame?

Now, how is that notable? without any context to suggest this has any significance for anything I suggest this section should not be included. __meco (talk) 21:37, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

It is notable because the article references predictive reports based upon a constructed modelspace. This data defines critical parameters of that modelspace.

Mcmarturano (talk) 23:15, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

It isn't notable, and even the article you're referencing doesn't provide context. It looks like wp:fringe; basically a string of big words that look important but mean nothing. I removed the section. Voiceofreason01 (talk) 15:23, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

According to Notability guidelines do not directly limit article content inclusion of this information does not need to meet the notability test. The information is relevant to the manner in which the predictive theory is applied. If one is looking for language changes among different time periods, it is relevant to know what the length of the time periods.

Mcmarturano (talk) 03:29, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Notability is not the issue, meaning is the issue. This looks very much like a dormitive principle to me. __meco (talk) 07:50, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Your original comment was that the information is not notable. However, it is neither dormitive principle. Concepts such as the solar month or lunar month are not unique to the ALTA Web Bot project. It is a reference frame. When writing reports they divide the year up into 13 months, instead of 12. If consensus is that this is not relevant enough to be in the entry, then fine. However you are really pushing your argument here, or else do not truly understand the information as it was presented. It is simply a detail of the methodology. The whole point of that set of edits is to provide more detail on the methodology, which is highly relevant to anybody trying to figure out what a "Web Bot" is and how it works Mcmarturano (talk) 15:28, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

While it is probably relevent to methodology I'm not sure it's important. They don't publish calculations and don't reference statistics in the predictions; All we really know about their methodology is that they collect data with web bots then magic happens then they have predictions. We simply don't know enough about their methodology for this to be anything but trivia. Voiceofreason01 (talk) 17:08, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

What type of information that would be important is currently missing from the methodology section? What questions still need to be answered here? Mcmarturano (talk) 18:30, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Ideally we would know what kind of algorithm they're using and have a third-party analysis of it. We don't know how the spiders work, what blogs and sites they're watching, how their algorithm weight words and what kind of tests they're using to generate the predictions. Like I said above, that they're using a 13-month lunar calendar as a reference frame seems to be an occult reference rather than a necessity for their statisical analysis. Given the circumstances and the subject matter a more in depth discussion of their methodology than what is already in the article would probably violate WP:WEIGHT and WP:FRINGE especially as we don't really know what their methodology is. The one caveat here is: if you can find a reliable third-party source that details their methodology then we could include more in the article. Voiceofreason01 (talk) 18:53, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Some sources given have nothing to do with what they are supposed to. For example on the claimed prediction of the Cheney hunting accident, reference #9 links to a page that makes no reference at all to Cheney or shooting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.211.132.70 (talk) 03:22, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Fear Mongering

I do not think that the web bot has any supernatural or 6th sense of things to come. It basically draws vague conclusions based off of what people think they know and their discussion of it via the internet. So in a sense, it's only as accurate and knowledgeable as we are. Let's all be honest and agree that on the internet there does exist some supernaturally dumb people. Just look at youtube comments or re-visit myspace and facebook. You know who you are.

That is not to say that qualified professional and mad geniuses don't utilize the internet. It's just a source free for all to use (a trait that can be crippling to web bot accuracy).

Sadly, there will never be a short supply of fear-mongers, whack-jobs, and general crazies broadcasting their religious/socioeconomic theories to the world. It happens; you know it and I know it. So, let's not put too much faith in the web-bot for now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.165.165.67 (talk) 18:48, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

No one ever claimed that they had any supernatural or 6th sense. But you are wrong as it's much more omniscient than we are. So it's more knowledged. 69.9.109.19 (talk) 20:01, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

External link to main web site?

It's hard to tell from an internet search or even this article what are and are not their official sites, or at least the main web page. Can that be put in there? Thanks. CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:53, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Death cloud, summer of hell

I remember reading in a web bot prediction about a death cloud that would circle the earth and a summer of hell. I cannot find the report anywhere. Could it have been Fukushima? Does anyone have access to the report I am talking about? 69.9.109.19 (talk) 20:03, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Secret room under the pyramid of Giza

I am pretty sure that the part that starts at the end of the page 22 of the May 1st 2011 report refers to the mysterious markings recently found in a room under the Great Pyramid of Giza. The report also talks about fire emerging from holes which could relates to the recent volcanic activity.

There are also talks in the report (page 20) about uprisings all around the world which the MSM would have difficulties lying about. The report hints to uprisings in different parts of the world that have large cultural differences. From the previous link : "The protests have been peaceful and not centered along traditional party lines, so corporate controlled media has had difficulty marginalizing the movement as a ragtag collection of youth upset about unemployment." “We are ordinary people. We are like you: people who get up every morning to study, work or find a job, people who have family and friends. People who work hard every day to provide a better future for those around us. Some of us consider ourselves progressive, others conservative. Some of us are believers, some not. Some of us have clearly defined ideologies, others are apolitical, but we are all concerned and angry about the political, economic, and social outlook which we see around us: corruption among politicians, businessmen, bankers, leaving us helpless, without a voice. This situation has become normal, a daily suffering, without hope. But if we join forces, we can change it.”

70.40.158.135 (talk) 22:27, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Proofs

How do you believe in such nonsense? Look, there will be no war or anything, or depression or even there will be no solar explosion...Stop believing this bullshit... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.36.83.42 (talk) 16:15, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Is Wikipedia Aiding in the Promotion of a Scam?

I am familiar with Clif High and his predictions from an acquaintance who paid for his reports, quit his job and moved to Argentina to avoid the disasters predicted by these two guys. When he first told me about them, my first question is WHO ARE THEY? I could find nothing that would indicate they have any history at all -- no record of education or employment. Mr. High, if that is his real name, says he quit his job and moved to Texas at one point for fear of an impending disaster that never took place. I have tracked some of their predictions (most are very vague), and found them inaccurate.

While the existence of this so-called "web-bot" project might justify a report in Wikipedia debunking the myth, that would require some actual knowledge of who these people are, what their experience is, how they monitor traffic in volumes that even the National Security Agency would find challenging, etc.

My guess is that they have no real web-bot program (other than perhaps spending some time surfing the web as individuals), no supercomputers, and nothing but a scam designed to dupe people. Thus, any suggestion that the web-bot program is a real thing merely promotes the scam -- and lacking real information on the scammers, the gimmick does not justify inclusion -- even in a very comprehensive encyclopedia.

I'd remove it -- or convert it to a snopes.com expose. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fredricwilliams (talk • contribs) 03:48, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I kinda feel the same way; I think that after 2012 it would be time to merge it with 2012 phenomenon. Serendi^podous 19:08, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Latest prediction: It will make a lot of dumb predictions the next 24 months and shut down. Just point that out in the page. History2007 (talk) 23:06, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Merge with 2012 phenomenon (2)

The only notability this ridiculous idea had was in relation to the 2012 phenomenon, and now that's over. It is two lines of text in that article, and that is all it needs to be. Serendi^podous 07:36, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

I'll take a week without response as de facto permission. Serendi^podous 19:25, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm reverting this, as it is in effect undiscussed deletion. Whatever the merit of the claims, I think this is a notable project due to the coverage it received. A tiny mention in 2012 phenomenon and a redirect to the unrelated Internet bot effectively deletes the article. Fences&Windows 16:12, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

I've opened discussion at the Fringe Theories Noticeboard to get some wider views on this. One support and one oppose doesn't make a consensus for anything. Fences&Windows 21:55, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, a really lunatic fringe idea, but not limited to the 2012 phenomenon. This website will go beyond 2012, so no point in merging them. It was mentioned in Seeking Alpha so it is not just the 2012 item. I did not even know it existed, so it was educational for me to learn how far off (may I say stupid) some ideas can be and that some people may actually pay money for them. As a computer scientist I can tell you that the idea is absolute utter nonsense, but that is my opinion, and matters not. I think the article can stay, but many of the junk sources, e.g. item 2 to the video and many other self-published sources need to go. History2007 (talk) 22:58, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

You guys who want this article preserved should be stripping it of undesirable material, not me. I've already made my position clear. If I truly went to town on this and removed all uncited or invalidly cited material, this article would only be 2 lines long. Serendi^podous 14:26, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Go for it. I think it deserves at most 3 parags. It is mostly junk. History2007 (talk) 15:54, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Done, though the question of whether this page is doing more harm than good has still to be answered. Serendi^podous 16:36, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

This project is a monument. A monument to gullibility of the human race... so needs to be there as such... History2007 (talk) 20:16, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Oppose merge, illogical as Web bot is not just 2012. Regards, Sun Creator^(talk) 23:59, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Reference 6 web page not found

It no longer exists. And I was unable to find any reference in number 5. And is reference 4 peer reviewed? 72.25.65.65 (talk) 15:56, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

I just added dead link tags to a TON of references. As for 4, I think it's supposed to be tongue-in-cheek, but op-eds usually tend to be problematic as references anyway.Clarinetguy097 (talk) 20:05, 3 August 2015 (UTC)