Talk:Taboola

Criticism
This article badly needs a criticism section for the well-doumented criticisms of this and other "around the web" style advertorials. -50.156.18.22 (talk) 19:57, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Would also like to see details on how the Taboola engine works, along with how it sources it decision making data... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.78.56.130 (talk) 03:09, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Article Improvements
Hi. I am affiliated with Taboola. The current article is flagged as an advert, most likely because: (1) it lists clients and investors extensively and (2) the Reception section is missing substantial controversy. The article could also use a few improvements like adding several acquisitions that are missing, consolidating paragraphs, general expansion, and a re-written lead that summarizes the article rather than a paragraph cited to the company website.

I've put together a draft at Talk:Taboola/draft that I think would bring this up to GA level of quality while adding substantial controversy. Per WP:COI, I am sharing the draft here on Talk for review by a disinterested editor. It is hard to compare the draft to the current live article, so if an editor does not want to review the draft as a wholesale replacement, I can start by trimming promotional material in the live page and taking edits piecemeal. Let me know what is easiest. CorporateM (Talk) 15:07, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * The draft version is a better version, more info in the criticism area, more professional sounding. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 23:08, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks . Would you like to do the honors of merging the improved article into article-space, or do you think we should wait longer to see if any other editors have comments? CorporateM (Talk) 12:19, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Moved and histories merged. You might look at the last few changes to see if they should apply to this version. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 12:25, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Fixed the broken image, removed the other, it looks like you called a template with too many options,m CorporateM. I will leave to you to clean up the rest.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 12:37, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

This article is inflated and of little to no value
This entire thing has been fluffed up by paid editors, most of the details and inane or unreasonably favorable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Everett3 (talk • contribs) 05:38, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I disagree. Drmies (talk) 17:48, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I too, disagree. I had already reviewed the article and found it reasonably balanced.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 18:05, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

corporate speak
The current 2nd sentence of the article reads:

> It develops and markets a service for online content publishers and advertisers that recommends digital content to website users.

This seems inflated, possibly intentionally with the aim of avoiding the more negative-sounding truth that Taboola is an advertising company. Why not use more direct, concise, and honest language? For example:

> It provides digital content advertisements aimed at website users.

There's nothing biased or dishonest about that statement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.2.156.154 (talk) 20:41, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Recent Edit
Requesting revert of vandalism here.

CorporateM (Talk) 21:36, 18 December 2017 (UTC)


 * ✅ by RajuChutiya.  Spintendo  ᔦᔭ   22:17, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Recent edit 2
Someone recently added a list of competitors to the See Also section. My understanding is that such lists of competitors typically originate from COI editors and are seen as linkbait. I ask that the See Also section be removed, since links to competing services is the only thing it contains. Wikipedia is not a shopping guide. CorporateM (Talk) 14:23, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Reply 01-OCT-2018

 * As no annotation of the links has been provided. Per MOS:SEEALSO.  Spintendo   21:24, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Recent Edits 3
recently added the following text: "Since 2018, Taboola has been working with startup brand Mack Weldon, which focuses on menswear. Taboola was helping Mack Weldon achieve a 39 percent conversion rate and heightened sale opportunities 2.8 times.15"

The cited source is a short blurb in a trade publication. I believe this content is WP:UNDUE, because case studies of individual customers are not ordinarily included on company pages, unless there is some special historical significance. As I have a COI, I was hoping a disinterested editor would consider removing this content.

Pinging and, who have participated in the page previously. I'll try "Request Edit" or something else if no one here shows an interest. CorporateM (Talk) 17:19, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Good point, and I'd like to see the peer-reviewed study that verifies "Those audiences were 2.8 times more likely to convert and purchase Mack Weldon’s products." Good to see you again, Corp. Hey, if that beach house of yours on the Gulf Coast is available this fall... Let's put your schedule and the Alabama football schedule side by side. ;) Drmies (talk) 20:46, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Recent edit
Pretty sure this is just vandalism; requesting the edit be reverted. CorporateM (Talk) 17:21, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Reply 26-AUG-2019
Spintendo 01:53, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Another recent edit
An editor recently changed "Critics argue" to "everyone knows," but the cited source (Fortune Magazine) says "Some critics argue... are shallow clickbait and/or fake news." Request reverting to the status quo to reflect the cited source. CorporateM (Talk) 05:36, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
 * (Path of least resistance is copying Spintendo's template above!) Altamel (talk) 03:37, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Oct 2 Edit
An IP editor recently changed the first sentence to read: "Taboola is a private advertising company headquartered in New York City, it provides advertisements such as fake news pushed as advertising,"

I would like to request this be reverted. Mrmorreale (talk) 17:11, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅ fixed with facts. I made some improvements while I was on it. Graywalls (talk) 19:54, 8 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks . This AdExchanger blurb supports allegations the merger was called off because of Taboola losing clients, etc., however more reliable sources merely say the original deal between the companies expired and mention a general economic downturn being the backdrop of the deal-making. (See Wall Street Journal) In addition, Chumbox is derogatory slang. Would you be open to more neutral wording?


 * Best regards. Mrmorreale (talk) 19:29, 15 October 2020 (UTC)


 * , "Taboola and Outbrain, the two biggest chumbox providers" NY Times. Wired uses chumbox throughout. https://www.wired.com/story/opinion-ad-mergers-wont-save-journalism-strict-merger-rules-would/. I don't see the problem here. AdExchange's coverage is more in depth and I see it was written by their senior editor, not a contributor. I am not seeing a reason to suggest they're not a reliable source and WSJ isn't refuting what AdExchange said. Graywalls (talk) 19:51, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Tag at top of page
Can someone who supports it clarify the reason for it here? 2603:7000:2101:AA00:D2:7C90:AC9F:D5C5 (talk) 18:05, 30 October 2023 (UTC)