Talk:CNET Networks

Genre Domain Names

 * Sounds like an advert to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.168.253.157 (talk) 12:39, 29 November 2004 (UTC)

Seems fine to me. And how about a list of all of the generic domain names they have (search.com, download.com, news.com...)? --Jason McHuff 05:06, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Could be interesting. They're little more than glorified domain name campers, anyway. &#151; NRen2k5 07:17, 25 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Dont they own com.com aswell Ferdia O'Brien The Archiver And The Vandal Watchman (Talk) 19:21, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Spyware
These guys are currently attempting to install spyware on to their visitor's computers. The only reason that I noticed was that I have Spybot Search and Destroy running resident on my PC. I don't know whether it is deliberate policy on their part or the result of some hack attack or virus infection by others but I think it only fair that we warn our visitors in case they want to avoid spyware. Under most circumstances I would just delete such links but in this case they point to the websites belonging to the subject of the article so it's not really an option... -- Derek Ross | Talk 03:04, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Interesting. I note that the warnings which I added to the article showing which of the many links are dubious have been removed by an anonymous user without any discussion of whether it was appropriate to do so. Perhaps our anonymous friend would care to share with us the reasons why this was done. The privacy policy link that has now appeared only explains the situation for US residents. -- Derek Ross | Talk 00:11, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm impressed to see that CNet has now removed the problem software. There is now no spyware issue with using CNet websites. Thanks and kudos to CNet for acting so promptly on this issue. -- Derek Ross | Talk 04:59, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Criticism
Someone please add a crit section to cnet. They aquire cool websites on the internet and then crapify them. All of their sites are full of annoying graphical ads and crowded interfaces. I would write the section myself but I don't know enough about them and their history.


 * Agreed, look what they just did to GameFAQs.--80.227.100.62 07:50, 12 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I also agree. Their site is just crap! I can't stand all those videos and ads all over the place. Some of their pages contain a couple paragraph of substance followed by globs and globs of links and ads! Who the heck would bother scrolling down pages after pages of links? 66.171.76.225 03:43, 30 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Agreed. A big beef I have with them is moderator favouritism. There is a member who uses the screen name Mark5019 who is a mentally unstable Vietnam war vet and who is apparently close friends with some moderators, as he was able to convince them to ban me though I had not broken any rules. Also their 'Speakeasy' forum is strongly right-wing biased - during the time I was there, I was constantly attacked for having centrist and liberal opinions on topics. And guess what? Their forum software is crap too! It's tree-view-only, there's no flood control, and it's actually possible to post to locked threads! Their forum Admin is useless - he cannot and does not do ANYTHING himself - duties are entirely divided among a staff of paid moderators and technicians. And finally, for the clincher... email sent by CNET staff is flagged as junk by both HotMail and AOL at the very least! -- 69.70.168.24 14:03, 8 August 2006


 * Just use Adblock with Firefox :)


 * I have nothing but bad things to say about their site. They write the most nonsensical articles. I suspect they get paid off by companies to write so much crap. A good example is that retard who reviews mp3 players. They get weak at the knees when talking about iPods, but when reviewing another product, they make the dumbest comments such as "the scroll button might give you blisters," which of course, is ridiculous. I hope I'm not the only one who has picked up on this.


 * No, you're not. every article that I read on CNET seems engineered solely to drum up drama and get them more page views. CNET is the reason that I wish I could block specific websites on Google News —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.21.101.48 (talk) 19:20, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Okay maybe we could have a criticism section with the biggest complaints, but we would need to balance it with a section made up of just the good things, along the lines of lover mail on the mailbag.Ayhnjroo (talk) 01:43, 5 August 2009 (UTC)ayhnjroo

Let us recall that this is a discussion section for inclusion into an encyclopedic article and not a place for random banter about your personal opinion of a website.Screen317 (talk) 09:31, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Fact check
Article says "In October of 2000 CNET Networks acquired ZDNet for approximately 1.6B USD". Is that correct? Or should it be 1.68 million USD? --bodnotbod 04:46, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Issue with Google
CNet was involved in a controversy with Google in August. The issue being that CNet used Google searches to get and publish information of Google CEO Eric Schmidt. Following this, Google refused to give any material or press releases to CNet for a year (ending July 2006). Can we include this in the article? I'm not able to get any external links for verification as I'm at work right now and a lot of news sites are filtered here. Please look it up and tell me if it's a good idea to include it in the article. Jam2k 11:10, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

That seemes important to me. would have to be writin very carefully though --zorkerz

The story that prompted the blacklisting:, a story about the blacklisting: , the aftermath (apparently the "embargo" has been lifted already):. Jasmol 05:29, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

all the external links...
What is with all the external links? This article just seems like a huge advertisement for CNet...Paul C/T+ 22:41, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah. I removed all of the links in the external links section not directly related to CNET as a business. It might be nice to add some links to articles on CNET from third parties or something, but there was no need to have an index of every site owned by CNET. Any notable sites owned by CNET already have their own wiki article.

Something needs to be done with all of these links to foreign CNET sites as well but I'm not sure exactly what. Maybe just remove the entire section. The article on Yahoo!, for instance, does not have a link to every foreign version of Yahoo(that would be silly), and all services and other sites owned by Yahoo! are linked to as wiki articles. RadioYeti 05:33, 12 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah, the international sites were actually what I was mostly referring to. They seem very out of place in the article. Paul C/T+ 13:13, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I think that because the article is about CNET Networks that having links to foreign CNET sites should be there

Ayhnjroo (talk) 01:36, 5 August 2009 (UTC)ayhnjroo

Capitalization
Having just come from the Lego page, I think the article's title should be CNet, not CNET (or, for that matter, Cnet), in order to remain consistent. It's the letter C, followed by the word Net. 204.145.242.1 22:42, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
 * CNET seems to be the official capitalization according the CNET website. (see the footer for the best examples, such as "About CNET Networks" and "&copy;1995-2006 CNET Networks") Binary 05:40, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but LEGO is the official capitalization according to the Lego website and the current Wikipedia policy is to use "Lego" rather than "LEGO". ;) This page ought to be consistent with that. 204.145.242.1 00:45, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

CNet GameCenter?
Nothing on CNet's old GameCenter site? Yeah, it was shut down in 2001 when they bought GameSpot, but I'm still surprised it wasn't even mentioned here... RobertM525 22:43, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Blantant marketing in the article
This article is full of blatant marketing lines. The "Content" section even includes the following quote, written in first person:

Some examples of our content include:

I think most of this article is blatant marketing and completely NPOV. Most of the external links do not even belong on this page. The external links either go to properties important enough to have their own articles (and then those articles should be linked) or they are not important enough to have as an external link. It appears like CNET is using Wikipedia for their own SEO.

SgnDave 20:40, 29 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I've reverted back to my last edit in June due to copyright and POV problems, with a few changes. --- RockMFR 20:37, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Split?
I've noticed that the podcast section is swelling, anyone think should this become a separate page? tcardone05 03:49, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Protection
Maybe we should get this page locked. Raving members of GameSpot's forums are planning a raid on cNet's wiki page. Freyar 21:50, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

→Yeah.. here comes the waves.Freyar 21:53, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * It's been protected for a week. Natalie 21:58, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Good. If you're mad at CNET, it doesn't make sense to make the Wikipedia editors suffer. Optichan 22:00, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Shouldn't there be at least a 'Criticism' section to shortly detail those events (and of CNet's management's reactions?). Just watching the events fold, it's pretty much a mileston in CNet's history Poisonborz (talk) 17:16, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed, but we’d have to be careful. There’s so much wrong with CNet, that a criticism section would quickly overshadow the rest of the article. Not that I would personally have anything against that, having firsthand experience with CNet’s lousy policies, but it wouldn’t reflect well on Wikipedia. &mdash; NRen2k5 09:26, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Merge from Download.com
It was suggested that the Download.com article be merged into this one. There wasn't a section for it on this talk page so I took the liberty of starting it. Discuss. &mdash; Fatal Error  00:04, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

If other CNET sites have their own page, Download.com should as well. It's a big part of the network. The article, though, could use some work. Tcardone05 (talk) 23:06, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

CNET's websites are completely broken!
Something is truly wrong with the CNET websites! I can't connect to GameSpot, I can't connect to my profile on MP3.com, I can't connect to my profile on TV.com, and I can't connect to GameFAQs! In fact, I can't connect to any website at all! Can somebody please fix all of the broken CNET websites? --Angeldeb82 (talk) 15:12, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Podcasts
The watchbol.com link should be changed to cnet.com/live as this is where all the Podcasts now stream from. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.100.59.195 (talk) 15:49, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Websites
First of all the titles shouldn't dance between the website and the site name, and also it seems that there are some "websites" that are more just a part of the CNET website (www.cnet.com) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ayhnjroo (talk • contribs) 01:41, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Why is it defunct?
Article says it is defunct. However, it is still operating as CNET. Therefore we can't say it's defunct!-- Lester  08:41, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

The use of was
IMO, this article makes it seem as if CNET doesn't exsist anymore by ,the use of the word "was" in the first sentence. I think the article needs a resturcting, so it appears as if CNET is still operating (which it is, very much so!) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.146.48.122 (talk) 21:24, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * This is exactly what I came to this discussion page to say. This article's very structure is deceptive to the average reader, most of whom are probably coming to learn about CNET.com. 98.82.34.167 (talk) 04:57, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I made the change to a more logical reading, but another editor saw fit to revert it, thus confusing everyone who comes here looking for info. Fine.  This is hardly an article I could give two shakes about, my work is done here. 98.82.34.167 (talk) 17:35, 15 May 2010 (UTC)