Talk:CNET Download

Fair use rationale for Image:Screenshot Download dot com.png
Image:Screenshot Download dot com.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 04:50, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

XSS On Download.com
Using the confirm link provided within the confirm e-mail sent to the address, causes NoScript to issue an XSS warning, blocking the confirmation of your e-mail address, and thus takes you to a 404 page.

This should be seriously noted. 66.168.19.135 (talk) 00:11, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Why is there a specific link to the AVG download?
avg top download edited by miChael Fritz"
 * http://www.download.com/AVG-Anti-Virus-Free-Edition/3000-2239_4-10320142.html?tag=contentBody;mostPopTwoColWrap&cdlPid=10983733

Saw other links removed but this has stayed. How is this specifically related to the subject of download.com more than other popular wares hosted there; or even least popular wares for that matter? There is already a link to download.com; shouldn't that be sufficient? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jrun (talk • contribs) 21:02, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Download.com "Shovelware" description
I am a catalog manager at Download.com. I believe there are parts of the description of the Download.com installer that are inaccurate.

I would like to make some minor edits to the text to correct the errors, but as I noted above, I am an employee of Download.com, so I'm trying to follow Wikipedia policy. I am going to post my explanation of what I consider to be errors here in the Download.com Talk page, and then see if there is any feedback, and then edit the page according to the COI guidelines.

The inaccurate text: "In September 2011, Download.com start bundling Shovelware with their downloads. Users are no longer able to download the installer of the program directly, but have to download a "manager" from Download.com, which will then download the program the user requires along with a selection of shovelware. There are also unconfirmed reports of this cause virus to be downloaded into users' computers."

The errors:


 * 1) "User are no longer able to download the installer of the program, directly" - a couple of untruths here--first, users who register for a free Download.com account can access all installers directly; second, many products in the catalog (e.g AVG, WinRAR) are available to both registered and non-registered users as direct, publisher-provided installers.


 * 1) "have to download a 'manager' from Download.com, which will then download the program the user requires along with a selection of shovelware." - this description is not accurate. The Download.com Installer is a standard stub installer similar to those used by many software publishers to facilitate installation. The stub installer prompts an optional offer to the user, then downloads the publisher-provided installer to the user's desktop and installs it (now or later). The term "a selection of shovelware" implies that several other products are being bundled by the installers. Again there is only one optional offer in each installer. I believe that this description should clarify that all of the bundled software offers are optional.


 * 1) Description of bundled software as Shovelware - I don't believe this is an accurate term to use for the optional software included in the Download.com stub installer. Per the Wikipedia entry, shovelware seems to be defined as either: a) the pre-installed software that comes on your computer without any consent; b) software ported from one platform to another with little thought about the new platform. I don't think the products included in the Download.com Installer are shovelware. The products are generally extensions add-ons that promote paid services. Shovelware is incorrect. A better phrase would be "bundled software offers."


 * 1) "There are also unconfirmed reports of this cause virus to be downloaded into users' computers." - This claim seems unsubstantiated with no citation. Several security vendors have tested the Download.com installer and confirmed that it is free from spyware, malware, and viruses. After I post this comment, I will gather some supporting evidence and bring it back here.

--Peter.Butler.CNET (talk) 18:34, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

I amended your corrections to make them clearer and to remove some of what I saw as unintentionally deceptive language. When you say "the installer suggests optional software programs to users" that's rather misleading - a browser toolbar and a change of homepage aren't software programs per se. I agree that it's not shovelware, but you're not including this "software" in an attempt to help the user, you're doing it to increase ad bucks for yourselves and the default option is to install said toolbars - an opt-out situation rather than an opt-in. So it's not shovelware, but it's falls somewhere near definition a (pre-installed software that comes on your computer without any consent) and bloatware. The requirement to use this installer isn't explicitly spelled out on Download.com, rather it is indirectly hinted at by small text below the "Download Now" button.

Luckily, this isn't the place to discuss the ethics, morality or implications of download.com bundling toolbars. I note that the actual software authors don't see any of the extra money raised through this, but I can't find any decent articles to cite concerning this. Perhaps someone may add a section about this in the future. Kodabar (talk) 19:45, 29 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Download has now become a major pain for adware, according to a bunch of sites. I got hit with a bunch of their crap today and am trying to clean out my computer just now. I suggest the article make note of this in the first paragraph. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 23:15, 23 February 2013 (UTC)


 * In 2014 the CNET installer infects systems with the gip.driverdiv.net malware even when users reject all additional offers. –89.204.155.244 (talk) 13:28, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Update:Avira insists on clean for the CNET PUP . MSE apparently ignores submissions. –82.113.121.59 (talk) 09:49, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

music gone from download.cnet ?
"Download.cnet.com offers content in four major categories: software ..., music, games, and videos," I can't seem to find any music content at Download.cnet. Anyone have links to where music is currently at download.cnet ? Music hosting to have been discontinued there as far as I can tell. --EarthFurst (talk) 13:24, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Download.com?
As of right now, download.com (http://www.download.com) is currently a generic ad-serving parking page, while the domain with specific page names referenced elsewhere on this talk page redirect to relevant sections on the download.cnet.com sub-domain. This is odd, as if the domain has been semi-hijacked. Normally, domains which expire are thrown in the PPC domain parking pit like this. Or maybe it's a DNS misconfiguration by CNET. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.163.124.59 (talk • contribs) 2012


 * So far nobody bothered to submit this malware site on WP:SBL. The pattern is rather simple:  Add "review" as external link, add "review" in a "reception" section, reference "review" elsewhere as early possible. –Be..anyone (talk) 05:51, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
 * So far nobody bothered to submit this malware site on WP:SBL. The pattern is rather simple:  Add "review" as external link, add "review" in a "reception" section, reference "review" elsewhere as early possible. –Be..anyone (talk) 05:51, 27 February 2014 (UTC)