Talk:Monster.com/Archives/2013

Page move
Since the company is no longer called "Monster.com" should this article be moved to "Monster (web site)"? -- 13:48, 6 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Agreed, the name should mirror official name currently being used. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MMuzammils (talk • contribs) 11:28, 26 May 2006


 * I was thinking the same thing. "Monster (website)" doesn't always mean that it is a dot com URL.  I think it would make more sense to go by that? CaribDigita (talk) 07:01, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

MonsterTrak
Anyone think we should include something on MonsterTRAK.com, Monster's entry-level subsite? PJ 16:34, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Fastweb
I believe that fastweb.com is a part of monster. Perhaps a link should be added to the Wikipedia article or the website itself.--Jonpro 05:31, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, FastWeb is owned by Monster Worldwide...but I don't think we need a separate link to it. If you look at the link to "Monster's Network of websites", you'll see it listed there...and A TON of others.  Repeating that list in this entry would be silly.  --PatrickD 05:46, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

2nd rank ?
"Today, Monster is the second largest job search engine on the Internet"

I thought Monster was number one...I would like a proof about this ranking ? As an additional question i would like to know who is first ? Ksempac 12:47, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

"Monster attack steals user data"
Anyone fancy incorporating any of this into the article? It comes across as a pretty big thing to me. "1.6 million entries with personal information belonging to several hundred thousands of candidates"? --Dreaded Walrus t c 19:05, 21 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Sounds notable to me. Rklawton 19:46, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


 * It is, for sure. I have a copy of the form letter they sent to all users affected by the data theft. If anyone thinks it's useful I could scan it and incorporate it (with my info blurred out, of course). Thoughts? IvoShandor 09:11, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

454th
Monster.com was the 454th website? What does that even mean? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.201.145.253 (talk) 22:40, 28 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, I guess that it probably means it was the 454th website ever created in the whole wide world ever. Chris 82.46.92.200 (talk) 20:03, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Jobs.com
Any source about the lawsuit mentioned in the artice? This link implies that Monster's parent owns Jobs.com, and it's dated several years before the alleged lawsuit. Sme3 (talk) 13:57, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. 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 move request was: page moved. Gary King ( talk ·  scripts )  21:54, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Monster (website) → — Per WP:NC (it's somewhere in there), if there's an alternative name available for the article, then use that first before disambiguating. This is the method used for Amazon.com, Pets.com, Ask.com, and hundreds more. Gary King ( talk ) 21:07, 19 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Agree- Though I couldn't find it in WP:AT, I've definitely seen that rule written somewhere before. The most important thing is that it makes more sense since you don't actually call it "Monster (website)" in real life. Anyway, since it is in line with Ask.com and other websites, it sounds like a good idea. --WikiDonn (talk) 21:45, 22 June 2010 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. 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.

removed template: 
At the section /* Criticism */  ( The reference number: 9 ). ... it's not, now a dead link. --PLA y Grande Covián (talk) 13:23, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/tech_and_web/the_web/article5594222.ece

JobsOnline
It looks like Monster acquired JobsOnline.com, which Employment website says in the early 2000s was actually larger than Monster. It seems significant enough to cover in the article. -- Beland (talk) 05:03, 14 October 2012 (UTC)