Talk:AllAdvantage/Archives/2012

Unbalanced tag
After nearly two years, none of those complaining about the alleged imbalances have offered any substantive additions/changes. It mostly just devolved into "I hated this company" bickering, with little discussion of what would make the article more balanced, while those in favor added significant footnoting and references to substantiate the facts presented. So I'm removing the "Unbalanced" tag. If anybody wants to dispute it further, please "put up or shut up", i.e., please offer substantive comments and improvements, don't just toss tags around. 71.2O2.86.94 (talk) 07:13, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

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)
 * You work for Agloco, don't you? 75.74.193.20 00:55, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Serious POV issue with this article. It reads like an advert. Can someone strim it down a little? I don't know enough about the company to fix this articleSolarBreeze 17:19, 22 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 its 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)


 * If the software tracks you with your permission, then it isn't spyware! It's the opposite of spyware... 207.225.1.129 22:21, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Request move
A discussion should be made of the possibility of agloco having it's own article. I don't think that now is the time to make major changes (Wikipedia has no time limit) since there is too much fuss around the topic dies I would like to see agloco have its own article. Gigitrix 11:42, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Given the amount of Agloco-related spam and bickering that this article has been seeing (check the history), I think an Agloco article would be just a lightning rod for edit-wars. And the youth of Agloco as a company suggests it's probably not yet ripe for an article. But that's just one opinion. 70.126.28.248 04:49, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Advert tag
User:Groupthink is of the opinion that the article reads like an advertisement. Would you care to provide some guidance as to what would alleviate your concerns? You indicated during the AfD that you had a problem with a particular (factual, relevant, sourced) sentence. How would you improve upon that sentence? Any other suggestions? Care to explain your position? 71.202.86.94 05:27, 23 May 2007 (UTC) — 71.202.86.94 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * My position was that the article read like promo materials for AGLOCO. My position now is that AGLOCO is NOT the same entity as AllAdvantage and deserves its own article, so I've made a WP:BOLD move.  I disagree that this is a controversial step.  The only controversy that I expect is from AGLOCO promo hacks using anonymous IP addresses to promote AGLOCO using the thoroughly biased AllAdvantage article.  Since AllAd is defunct, I have replaced the  tag with an  tag.  AllAd needs a lot more material critical of its sketchy business model. Groupthink 05:34, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * "Sketchy"... now there's a balanced statement. :-) According to a post in the AfD, it was so sketchy that it had a bunch of highly respected venture capital firms give it hundreds of millions of dollars and had a US president come for its birthday party. 71.2O2.86.94 09:09, 24 May 2007 (UTC) — 71.2O2.86.94 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Yes, and as anyone over the age of twelve knows, highly respected VC firms were showering Internet startups with cash at the end of the last century, despite their highly sketchy business models. I'm going to assume you're not a disingenous troll and remind you that AllAd did in fact go belly-up precisely because it had a sketchy business model.  Furthermore, I take offense at your attempt to impugn me with that "there's a balanced statement" nonsense.  I regret to inform you that your point is off-base and dead wrong. Groupthink 09:44, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Just because a company goes bellyup doesn't mean they had a "sketchy" business model. Sketchy implies some level of shadiness or ill-intent, and that's what I find offensive about the term. (But maybe you weren't intending to offend, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.) In 1999, when AllAdvantage launched, CPM ad rates were about $7/1000. Eighteen months later they were under $1/1000. That is an 85% drop, and it rendered the original AllAdvantage business model unsustainable. What would happen if, by comparison, home values in the US dropped by 85%. By your logic, it would make the home loan business pretty "sketchy." Of course that's absurd; dramatically changing market conditions don't necessarily make a business model "sketchy". And remember, when home values *did* drop a fraction of that percentage back in the 1980s (along with interest rates), the Savings and Loan industry went belly up. The government stepped in and supported the S&L industry to give it time to adjust. Unfortunately AllAdvantage didn't have that luxury and although it worked quickly to change its business model (as discussed in the article), it ran out of time. So it paid its debts and closed. 71.2O2.86.94 06:41, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah, glad you clarified that. I meant no such implication; I was using the term as it's literally defined:  "Lacking in substance or completeness; incomplete." Groupthink 17:08, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Business model
From what I read so far, isn't their business model very similar to Multi-level marketing? Basically, you get paid money for refering this to more people. This become a tree like structure and the ones at the root will make the biggest profit. Lightblade 02:29, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually no, the business model was revenue sharing on advertising. What you're referring to was the marketing strategy, using referral-based compensation to reward those who have helped grow the user base. The only part that is "multi-level" was that they compensated not just for direct referrals, but for the referrals of referrals, down several layers. 71.202.86.94 08:30, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia's role and mission.
Back in the Spring of '07, Segolene Royal of France was a highly controversial political figure, yet she was also poised to become the next president of France. Now that she's lost the election, she remains a significant footnote in the history of French politics. And Wikipedia wouldn't delete her name and pretend she never existed. Same goes with candidates for US President - Dukakis ran once, so did John Glenn etc.

Similarly, AllAdvantage was controversial but very hot in its days - controversial because of its viral marketing policies, because of its numerous changes in member payments etc. Yet President Clinton did visit the company. The company got full-page stories everywhere - in Business 2.0 and The Industry Standard, in the NY Times and the Financial Times, in the Wall Street Journal and on Reuters etc. Forbes ran a story on the firm titled "the dumbest dot.com". AllAdvantage raised something like $200 million - an industry standard in its own way. And the list goes on.

Some people think AllAdvantage was a crazy company? That's no reason to claim it never existed, and erase it from Wikipedia. I think it is Wikipedia's role and mission to keep record of events just like the short-lived life of AllAdvantage. Some day Wikipedia will be a prime source for historians who study a given period - serving information that no other records hold.

And so commentators and contributors would be well-inspired to draw the line between their personal likes and dislikes on one hand, and hard facts on the other. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.229.45.76 (talk) 15:00, 3 January 2008 (UTC)