Talk:Dooble

Security features
The given source doesn't say what the features are (it's a download-link rather than a review - the same problem applies to the other sources). The context sounds like blocking cookies, but other browsers do that. TEDickey (talk) 20:53, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Are you referring to that:

Außerdem verhindert „Dooble“, dass Ihr Verhalten im Internet aufgezeichnet und von Dritten zurückverfolgt und ausgewertet werden kann.
 * ? I would count more than cookies, but at the moment I don't know. (Will check after friday) mabdul 01:49, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

strict review process
If it's not documented where we can verify it, the comment is promotional and can be removed. TEDickey (talk) 22:14, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The latest source added is only relevant in the comment that the program is rebuilt on its target platforms periodically. That's not a review, strict or otherwise.  The citation should be removed, unless it's going to be used for some other purpose. TEDickey (talk) 10:47, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

One of the primary purposes of Dooble is to safeguard the privacy and security of its users
The given cite alludes to "privacy", does not mention "security", and does not provide any information on "privacy" beyond comment in the beginning. It's not a useful citation for the sentence. TEDickey (talk) 01:15, 18 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Mmmh, the PC Welt article doesn't say it explicit, but why mention then PGP and server-free chatting?
 * The problem is that these "articles" don't provide any date of writing and thus we don't really know for which version they tested. (one source is talking about one of the first versions...) mabdul 01:52, 18 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Most of the text that I'm seeing appears to be normal cut/paste from primary sources with little or no thinking involved by the "reviewers". Not worth including, in general. Terms such as "unique", "primary", privacy/security are being used purely in a promotional sense since there is no supporting discussion .  Promotional text lists features.  WP:RS shows the interrelationships of things.  So far all I'm seeing is a small number of developers promoting their work, no more than that. TEDickey (talk) 08:26, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

list of platforms
The inclusion of "FreeBSD" in particular is unsourced; it appears that someone added it in the hopes that portability is automatic. Just as well that they're not listing all of the 30-40 platforms that I deal with. TEDickey (talk) 08:22, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

compatible with any operating system where Qt is available
That's a promotional statement (claiming portability without a WP:RS which analyzes it). That is, unless dooble is demonstrated to be a trivial application of Qt. In that case, we wouldn't be discussing its notability. TEDickey (talk) 10:50, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

External recommendations are reviewed, and if accepted, applied
I don't see any support at all in the given source. Another possible place to look would be in the git history. But a quick look there shows no attribution (other than of course to the quasi-anonymous developer(s)). Perhaps someone can find an example there to discuss. TEDickey (talk) 10:54, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Chromium-based ?
According to c|net in December 2013, this browser is Chromium-based. If such is the case, then the layout engine, as indicated in the infobox, would no longer be Webkit, but Blink. --Jerome Potts (talk) 04:37, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, you are correct: "Qt Software included a WebKit port in the Qt 4.4 release as a module called QtWebKit[72] (since superseded by Qt WebEngine, which uses Blink instead). " https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WebKit --2A02:8388:4501:1F00:2557:90B:C06C:C458 (talk) 16:12, 26 December 2023 (UTC)