Talk:Tagged (website)/Archive 1

Suspicious of Identity Theft
This web service perpetrated one of my relative's email account and that propagated through my family. One of my aunt was asked for the last four digits to her social security number. No social networking services will ever ask you personal information to that degree. Even if you're buying something on ebay they don't ask you that information. I would suggest everyone who's given more information then they should go and put on a credit alert with their banks. 65.248.93.201 (talk)pobetiger —Preceding undated comment added 16:08, 8 June 2009 (UTC).


 * This is really hard to believe... even from Tagged.69.236.74.167 (talk) 06:21, 13 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Obviously anecdotal evidence is always suspect, but one of the assertions that is often made is that tagged.com allows unscrupulous sponsors to advertise during the registration process. It's possible that a sponsor and not tagged requested the information. Ucanlookitup (talk) 11:09, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

SPAM
After a friend sent me an invite to 'Tagged' and I singed up, I began recieving 40-50 spam emails every day. Very few person know about the email address I used and it never received spam before. I know for a fact it was Tagged doing it because I had used a fake name to sign up and the Spam emails used the fake name in the subject. What did I do? I simply redirected my email to all the contact addresses listed for tagged and stopped using it. I considered signing THEM up to some spam....but then I'm not a criminal like them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.194.145.168 (talk) 23:34, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Is there any sign that authorities are investigating tagged.com? Because it's obviously a criminal organisation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Omargard123 (talk • contribs) 17:23, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I was sent an E-Mail this morning, from a Friend, regarding a Friend Request to Tagged.com. I Trust the Friend so I Opened it. I began Registration. When I got to where my Cell Phone Number was Required, I Cancelled. Shortly, within 10 minutes, thereafter, I began receiving letters from folks in my Address Book who had received Friend Requests from ME! They, Tagged.com, had Invaded my Address Book. They will also Invade Yer Address Book if ye get this Mail! Strongly Suggest Ye DELETE and BLOCK! Report as SPAM! A PHISHING SCAM! Remember, I had not even Finished Registration!Kingnormie (talk) 21:35, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Tagged have done the same to me regarding friend's requests that did not actually come from my friends and they spam me regularly. I found this page when trying to get to the bottom of it and was astonished at the main page content. It's sailing close to being an advert and I'd wager it's not neutral given the negative, albeit word-of-mouth, concensus on this site amongst everyone I know who has had contact with it. Please, someone, find something to 'balance' this with because I'm sure it's out there, and make sure it stays.

I received an invitation to "Tagged" from a friend. I did some looking online to see what it was, then emailed him to ask if he'd sent me an "invitation". He saidno. He said that Tagged invaded his email address book and sent out invitations to everyone in it. This is viral propagation. Tagged should be blocked from the internet immediately. 72.171.0.148 (talk) 00:55, 20 January 2009 (UTC)nofluer 18:55 19 January, 200972.171.0.148 (talk) 00:55, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Just look at this http://xianlandia.com/te-amo/2007/04/23/avoid_taggedcom_like_the_plague.htmlHaute Pie (talk) 19:41, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

More Spam
Seriously... Tagged.com does nothing but send spam to people in the vain hope of becoming Facebook. Azoreg (talk) 21:35, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Rubbish
I think this is the worst site i have ever seen —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.105.159.239 (talk) 15:16, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Someone who amounted to a friend of a friend invited me to join. I find it's basically a dating site and little else and since I'm married it's NOT for me.Alloco1 (talk) 22:01, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Getting the spam to stop
Please report the spam emails to the following addresses:

support@tagged.com, abuse@gblx.net, noc@tagged.com, abuse@unitedlayer.com

Getting the site offline is the only way spam gets stopped and these people need to be made aware of the amount of spam these people send.

An Internet First
This site may go down in history as the first cyber venereal disease. 24.8.59.22 (talk) 19:06, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Tagged will not last. Once it's clear what it's about, no respectable company will want anything to do with it. 134.10.113.105 (talk) 22:36, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Some thoughts on recent revisions
1) I think that it's important that there be reference to the site's questionable business practices in the lead paragraph. They are one of the most notable things about the site and will be of importance to those looking at this article.

2) ISTM that the previous editor was being disingenuous in labelling edits with innocuous phrases like "logical reordering of sentences" when in fact he was toning down the criticism significantly.

3) Does anyone understand the reference given in support of the idea that the practice of demanding the user's email password is common among social networking sites? It leads to a bunch of flow charts and I don't understand what they're saying. I notice, though, that only Tagged and one other site are labelled as "viral". Can anyone explain? Brettalan (talk) 17:44, 10 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Just revert. Most of the accounts removing or downplaying this information have edited nothing but this article and are obviously agents of this sleazebag company. Tyuia (talk) 03:05, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * 1) Absolutely – no doubt.


 * 2) I agree, and have warned the IP accordingly (User_talk:76.204.193.121).


 * 3) Hmmm... I couldn't make much sense of that source, though it seems to be designed to promote KISSmetrics. I see no evidence it would be a reliable source.  Nevertheless, it's probably true that social networking sites commonly request users' email passwords: I remember Facebook requiring mine when I joined.  At present the article doesn't imply that this behaviour is unusual, so I don't think there's a problem.  It's the unsolicitied mass emailing that's been controversial, not the asking of the password per se.


 * Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 07:51, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't believe facebook requires your email password but offers the option to find friends that way. Same goes for twitter. I choose not to provide it for either. Ucanlookitup (talk) 16:46, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Ok, maybe it's changed since I joined around September 07. Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 14:13, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Possible Lock?
It seems obvious to me that this is a very closely-watched article by some people who want to keep out almost all criticism of this website (repeated undos and revisions taking out sources and perfectly acceptable material). These repeated edits seem to violate the NPOV that wikipedia is supposed to have. Should this article be locked to avoid these repeated, biased edits? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.78.131.42 (talk) 22:13, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Tagged.com employee editing this article
If you look up 64.125.137.10 at ARIN.NET you'll see that IP is among a range allocated to Tagged, Inc. That account today erased all criticism from the lead and renamed the controversy section to something that sounded innocuous. DreamGuy (talk) 22:15, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm trying to revert the article as fast as possible but these guys are persistent. I think a lock is in order. ApostrophePolice (talk) 22:24, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The article has been semi-protected. I hope that any editors who may be affiliated with the company will join the Talk page and explain whatever concerns they may have. EdJohnston (talk) 23:08, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

More bad press
tagged.com email "scam"


 * Added as reference. Tyuia (talk) 23:44, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

70 million registered users?
I find that claim, sourced only to the company website, highly dubious. For comparison, Facebook has around 200 million. Given the company's history of deception and their commercial interest in appearing popular, there's no way their site is a reliable source, so I'm removing the claim. Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 14:13, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, it's conceivable they tricked a lot of people to sign up to see the photos / "comments about you" / whatever the deceptive emails claim are there, but certainly the percentage of registered users that actually use the site in any ongoing capacity is very, very low. I've never heard of anyone I know using it, versus tons of people on MySpace, Facebook, LiveJournal, etc. Cut certainly anything the company claims about itself is likely to be highly deceptive based upon what we know about them. DreamGuy (talk) 19:43, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Move to Tagged?

 * 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 Moved by EdJohnston. kotra (talk) 21:16, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Tagged (social network) → Tagged &mdash; Proposed >5 days ago without objection. I hadn't expected the move to be controversial, just thought it best to propose first given the controversial nature of the topic. - Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 16:45, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Per WP:TITLE, it would seem this article should just be called "Tagged". The article at present is more about the company and its practises than the network itself.  I don't see any disambiguation issues as Tagged redirects here, and users looking for anything listed at the Tag disambiguation page would presumably search for either "Tag" or "Tagging".  I'll list Tagged (social network) --> Tagged at Requested_moves shortly if no-one objects.  Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 14:29, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Maybe. Probably. Graffiti? Dekimasu よ! 16:56, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * To most people, the primary meaning of "tagged" is as a past form of the verb "to tag", which tagging redirects to. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 21:19, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm just going by our guidelines. From Naming conventions (precision): "if it is unlikely that... other meanings will have Wikipedia articles, then the article may be titled with that word or phrase alone."  I can't see that any other article would be called Tagged.  Although "tagged" might refer to something that has been the subject of a tag or a graffito, readers searching for these meanings would normally use either the noun ("tag") or the gerund form of the verb ("tagging"). Simpler headings reduce the probability that readers will be redirected, and may help this article's rankings on search engines .  Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 09:25, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose "Tagged" is often used as a past tense form of the verb "tag": I tagged Mike on Facebook; I decided to get the cat tagged with a microchip. "Tagged" should be a redirect to Tag, and this page should remain where it is currently. YeshuaD avid   •  Talk  • 23:46, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Support. Tagged pointing here rather than to tag makes sense, because the reader is much more likely to be looking for this meaning. If they were looking for the other meanings, "tag" and "tagging" would be more likely search terms. As such, this article should be at Tagged, because the extra qualifier is not needed. Jafeluv (talk) 11:35, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It's worth noting that googling tagged shows some links relating to the social network, but a large number with different meanings unrelated to Tagged (social network). YeshuaD avid   •  Talk  • 21:15, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * YeshuaDavid, no-one's disputing that tagged has other meanings. You and Anthony haven't responded to the substance of my or Jefeluv's arguments. Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 04:11, 2 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Support. Most people seem to be arriving at this page via Tagged - presumably they are staying here. Move it and put a hat at the top of the article to the disambig page.     M   22:26, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Change to support after reading other comments more carefully. While "tagged" does has a wide range of meanings, there are no other likely target destinations for "tagged". Readers seaching for it will most probably be looking for the the social networking site. YeshuaD avid   •  Talk  • 23:26, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks YD. There seems to be consensus for the move, so I've requested admin assistance here. Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 15:28, 3 July 2009 (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.

New York AG Sues Tagged
The wonderful New York AG Cuomo is suing Tagged for their address book spam practices. See here:. I can't find anything about that on the page and I can't seem to edit it either. 174.18.212.84 (talk) 01:35, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I added the info.Ucanlookitup (talk) 02:46, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Badoo
Contributors here might also be interested in Badoo, a similar social networking site also accused of sending deceptive unsolicited emails. There's currently a Request for Comment on whether that claim should be included in Wikipedia, which seems to hinge on whether a reliable source can be found. Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 13:02, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Balancing the tone in this entry- proposed changes
Hi all, I currently work for Offbeat Guides and have been working full time on Wikitravel for over a yr (see user MarinaK on wikitravel). I have been approached by Tagged through a mutual friend to assist them in balancing the tone of this page and improving the material presented due to my experience in working with the wiki community. While I understand that this is a controversial page and a hotly discussed topic, I would like to work with the community to achieve more neutrality in the tone (while still keeping all the facts) and flesh out the information in this page. For example, currently, the Talk page is longer then the entry itself : ) I have discussed this page in particular with Jimmy Wales and Wikipedia employee Elena as I understand that many people have worked on this page and I only want to work with everyone in improving this entry. Having made changes to sections in this entry, and including new sections to this entry as well, rather then going ahead and publishing them live on this page, I would like to discuss my changes with everyone first. One of my proposed changes is to the section 'Company and Website'. Extremely short in length, I have researched the background of Tagged and have revised it to 'Company and Team'. Please note that while I haven't included references here, I have all my references noted and ready to input.

Company History and Team

Tagged Inc. was co-founded by Harvard graduates and entrepreneurs Greg Tseng and Johann Schlier-Smith. Other ventures that Greg Tseng and Johann Schlier-Smith have co-founded together are Avivon, Inc., which is a textbook comparison company. Mr. Tseng has an A.B. in Chemistry, Physics, and Mathematics from the University of Harvard. Tseng is currently at Stanford University where he is pursuing a PhD in Physics and National Defense Science and Engineering.

The other co-founder of Tagged, Johann Schlerier-Smith also runs the company’s technical operations. Schleier-Smith also holds an A.B. in Physics and Mathematics from Harvard University. Mr. Schleier-Smith is also working of a PhD in Physics at Stanford University with the National Science Foundation Graduate Fellowship, the Stanford Graduate Fellowship, and the Hertz Foundation Fellowship Research Grant.

Wanting to build the "next Teen Yahoo or the next MTV" http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/06_09/b3973086.htm, Tseng and Schlier-Smith created Tagged in October of 2004 when they saw social networking taking off. Initially targetting US teens, in October 2006, Tagged opened to users worldwide aged 13 and older. Tagged still has tight security in place for users under 18. For example, profiles for 13 and 14 year olds cannot be viewed by the public or registered users over 16, and profiles for 15-16 year olds are private to non users and users over 18. Older users can still add these youngsters as friends, but they must know their email address or last name to request the friendship, and the younger user must also accept them. In 2007, Tagged discovered that most of their usage was between people and shifted gears to becoming the top "social discovery site" and the best place to meet new people online.

In March 2008 Microsoft announced a commercial partnership with social networking sites Tagged, Facebook, LinkedIn, Bebo, and hi5 regarding email contacts APIs[14][15][16] Other partnerships include Slide, RockYou, PhotoBucket, Meebo,[17] Razz[18] and Jangl.[19]

Tagged’s board of directors include Reid Hoffman, founder and CEO of Linkedin; Raj Kapoor and Allen Morgan, both managing directors of Mayfield Funding. Tagged has 40 employees at the present and have been profitable for more than two years. Tagged has raised $13.5 million in capital and have revenue in the $10 million to $20 million range.

As this is a big task, I'm willing to work with everyone involved in writing this page. Please let me know what you think of the proposed change to this section, and when everyone feels comfortable with it, perhaps then I can go and publish it live on the site? Many thanks, Marina. MarinaKSF (talk) 05:35, 17 November 2009 (UTC)MarinaKSF
 * Hi MarinaKSF. I understand the desire of tagged.com to present a more favorable view. But I would not consider what you have here NPOV - a few points:
 * Sadly, the most notable fact about tagged, is not the biographies of it's founder which has been given quite a bit of weight. The most notable fact about tagged is the controversy it has caused with its use of user contacts. In my opinion, that needs to be prominently mentioned in the first paragraph.
 * While mentioning Tseng's previous work history, you have, for obvious reasons, left out the most notable - "Jumpstart Technologies"
 * " Tagged still has tight security in place for users under 18..." - certainly not neutral. This and the rest of that paragraph are likely to be hotly disputed. Do you have reliable sources other than the company statements? Are you prepared to include, for the sake of balance, contradictory statements that suggest these measures are ineffective?
 * You might consider making incremental changes rather than a wholesale edit of the article.Ucanlookitup (talk) 12:36, 17 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Looking at Marina's post, there are two major things which I feel need to be said. The first is that *balancing* is not the goal here; fairness and accuracy are the goal. Tagged is most notable for business practices that many people find problematic, and the article needs to reflect that. The second thing is that the company doesn't necessarily get a say in how it is covered here.


 * Having said that, though, it does seem that the things she wants to add are OK. I have no problem with adding biographical details about the founders, for example. I don't know how common it is to talk about members of the board or the financial details you have there in corporate entries, but I suppose I don't have a problem with it so long as the sources are reliable. What I WOULD have a problem with, though, would be any attempt to remove or downplay coverage of the controversies surrounding the company.Brettalan (talk) 17:48, 17 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for using the talk page, Marina.


 * I agree with Ucanlookitup and Brettalan above that there are problems with the neutrality of your proposed changes. Wikipedia does not add positive material for the sake of "balancing the tone" of negative material – if an article's subject is known for mostly negative reasons, an article should reflect that.  Neutrality in Wikipedia is described by the core policy Neutral point of view and in pages linked therein.


 * I find the level of detail about the co-founders in your above post to be too high. The full details of Greg Tseng's education and past would be more appropriate in Wikipedia's article on Greg Tseng.  I'm not sure whether Johann Schlerier-Smith would warrant his own article; see Wikipedia's guideline on the notability of people.


 * I agree with Ucanlookitup about security – any such claims would have to come from a reliable source, which would not include anything produced by the company itself.


 * Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 10:57, 18 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your responses. Per Ucanlookitup's suggestion, I will make incremental changes to the entry itself, rather then post a large edit on this page, I do not wish to make this page any more longer ; ) My sources come from a variety of companies, including Techcrunch, Hitwise, Crunchbase, Businessweek etc. As I show the new changes on the entry and input my references, you can check the validity of my sources.

I appreciate both perspectives, but I do want to make everyone aware that close to a million people visit Tagged in the US every day, regardless of the controversy of its past practices (http://www.quantcast.com/tagged.com). That's significantly more visits then other well known social networking sites such as Bebo and Hi5 (which has received criticism for phishing emails, but it is not mentioned in their introduction on their entry).

Tagged is much more than this single, albeit notable, issue. It is extremely popular as reported by third party sources and it has completely eliminated its previous user contact process. One of the most important benefits of Wikipedia is it ability to evolve and be updated in real time. To report an accurate picture of the present.

For example – if a new scientific fact is discovered about a subject – those new facts can be incorporated into the story in near real time. Readers can reference the older material and thoughts from the past but benefit from having the most accurate and up to date information.

Tagged’s past controversy is a fact and needs to be included. But it has changed and it is much more than this one particular issue – and that should be reflected in the initial description of the company. I feel positive about the work that can be done moving forward and believe that this page could be an example of the great work done by the wikipedia community. 99.189.92.102 (talk) 19:00, 18 November 2009 (UTC)MarinaK

A note on sources
Currently the article uses http://www.crunchbase.com as the reference for several statements. Crunchbase itself warns about the accuracy of the site:

How do I know the data is accurate?

You do not know if the data is accurate. As multiple people edit CrunchBase profiles of companies, financial organizations and people, some  mistakes  might be added. Information might also be out of date. If you notice anything that needs changing you can go ahead and edit the page.

The facts being referenced don't seem to me particularly controversial, but I'm sure we can find a reliable source. Ucanlookitup (talk) 05:47, 20 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm surprised and dissapointed that you personally don't consider Crunchbase to be a reliable source when you present the content of Crunchbase to be the same as Wikipedia, where Wikipedia users can edit an entry without really knowing the subject overall. Working on that comparison, Crunchbase receives far fewer visitors per day then Wikipedia and the target users for Crunchbase is people working in the tech industry, far more unlikely to edit an entry negatively then the average Wikipedia user. However, as I want to work fairly on this entry, I will find other sources for my statements.
 * Wikipedia lists it's sources while Crunchbase does not. If they did, we could evaluate the reliability of the statements. Without knowing the source, they are simply anonymous assertions and should be given no weight Ucanlookitup (talk) 00:27, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * There's no inconsistency here, as we don't cite Wikipedia, either (link to policy). Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 02:25, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm also very surprised to see new edits being made in the Controversy section regarding Tseng and Jumpstart. Jumpstart has nothing at all to do with Tagged and it is unfair to insert new information about the co-founders previous company in to a completely different company's entry. This entry is not about Tseng, he has his own entry for his life and career and Jumpstart should be associated to his personal entry. Please work together with me on this entry and revert that insertion. --24.7.62.5 (talk) 00:16, 22 November 2009 (UTC)MarinaK.
 * The information about Jumpstart in the controversy section has been there for a very long time and in my opinion is very relevant. Ucanlookitup (talk) 00:49, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It was you who started expanding on Tseng's past, MarinaK. The fact that Tseng has a prior history as a professional spammer is extrememly pertinent to an article about a company he founded.  Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 02:25, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Likewise, linkedin cannot be considered a reliable source Ucanlookitup (talk) 17:25, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


 * The number of employees that Tagged has is not a controversial topic, so why are we nitpicking about this? As per our discussions, I am going to third party sources for references which is why I got this fact from Linkedin. I'm surprised that Linkedin is being removed as a source when on Facebook's entry, they cite the Facebook blog as their reference for their 900 employees- If Facebook gets away with citing their own blog as a source, I believe that the LinkedIn reference should remain on this page. 99.189.92.102 (talk) 19:07, 24 November 2009 (UTC)MarinaK.


 * I've heard no feedback on this issue so I would like to reinstate the LinkedIn source regarding number of employees. MarinaKSF (talk) 21:03, 28 November 2009 (UTC)MarinaK.
 * It was never removed. The point was that one should not use it as a reference for controversial statements.Ucanlookitup (talk) 22:19, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Accurate terms for Wikipedia and this entry
I propose to remove the terms “phishing” and “spamming” from the description of Tagged’s past email invitation practices. Wikipedia’s definition of both terms clearly demonstrates that Tagged has in no way taken part in these particular practices.

Please review the Wikipedia definitions and the specifics on why they do not apply to Tagged:

Tagged did not partake in “Phishing” based on the following:

No criminal fraud

Tagged’s invitation process was not criminally fraudulent and Tagged has never been subjected to any criminal accusations or charges.

No passwords or sensitive information was acquired by Tagged

In cases where people accessed their email address books during the Tagged registration process – it was strictly for the purpose of inviting their friends and no sensitive information was acquired by Tagged.

'''No fake sites. All information was entered on the actual Tagged site'''

In all cases, the Tagged site was legitimate and allowed consumers to skip or opt-out of the invitation process on all steps. Consumers were never directed to a fake website.

Based on the above facts Tagged does not meet any of the defining elements of phishing. The opinions of the outdated and ill-informed minor blog posts referenced are not accurate as a description of the practices Tagged.

In the field of computer security, phishing is the criminally fraudulent process of attempting to acquire sensitive information such as usernames, passwords and credit card details by masquerading as a trustworthy entity in an electronic communication. Communications purporting to be from popular social web sites, auction sites, online payment processors or IT administrators are commonly used to lure the unsuspecting public. Phishing is typically carried out by email or instant messaging, and it often directs users to enter details at a fake website whose look and feel are almost identical to the legitimate one. Even when using server authentication, it may require tremendous skill to detect that the website is fake. Phishing is an example of social engineering techniques used to fool users, and exploits the poor usability of current web security technologies. Attempts to deal with the growing number of reported phishing incidents include legislation, user training, public awareness, and technical security measures.

Tagged did not partake in “Spamming” based on the following:

No unsolicited bulk email was sent

The email invitations in question sent by Tagged were not unsolicited. Consumers had the option to skip or opt-out of sending the invitations to friends and the emails were not indiscriminately sent.

No anonymity 

Tagged was clearly identified as the service enabling and providing the email invitations. One of the cornerstone definitions of Spam is that spammers attempt to hide their identity making it difficult to be held accountable. Tagged has not tried to cloak itself and has been held accountable for alleged confusion – but not “spamming

Spam is the abuse of electronic messaging systems (including most broadcast media, digital delivery systems) to send unsolicited bulk messages indiscriminately. While the most widely recognized form of spam is e-mail spam, the term is applied to similar abuses in other media: instant messaging spam, Usenet newsgroup spam, Web search engine spam , spam in blogs , wiki spam , online classified ads spam , mobile phone messaging spam , Internet forum spam , junk fax transmissions , social networking spam , and file sharing network spam.

Spamming remains economically viable because advertisers have no operating costs beyond the management of their mailing lists, and it is difficult to hold senders accountable for their mass mailings. Because the barrier to entry is so low, spammers are numerous, and the volume of unsolicited mail has become very high. The costs, such as lost productivity and fraud, are borne by the public and by Internet service providers, which have been forced to add extra capacity to cope with the deluge. Spamming is widely reviled, and has been the subject of legislation in many jurisdictions.

People who create electronic spam are called spammers.

While Tagged has been subject to consumer complaints for confusing email invitation practices, those concerns are very different than the two abuses as defined by Wikipedia and other sources.

It is a fact that both “phishing” and “spamming” are practiced by anonymous entities typically with criminal intent. Tagged has never attempted to be anonymous and criminal charges or accusations have never been made so therefore Tagged cannot be consider a phishing site or spammer. It should also be noted that Tagged has modified and complied with correcting past controversial situation with email invitations. 99.189.92.102 (talk) 18:55, 24 November 2009 (UTC)MarinaK


 * Perhaps Tagged hasn't formally received criminal charges, but it has been investigated by state attorneys general, has entered into settlements with said attorneys general, and has agreed to alter its business practices as a result of said settlements as well as paying fines. That's about as close to evidence of criminal activity as you usually get from a corporation.


 * Unsolicited mail was certainly sent--I've received it myself. Yes, it's true that there was the possibility to opt-out, but according to the citations provided, those options were presented in such a fashion that many people would not notice or understand them. There's no question that passwords WERE aquired by Tagged.


 * But the bottom line is, you can't use a constructed argument here. If anything, that would be original research. There are multiple sources that say that the site has been accused of both phishing and spamming. (Note that the article doesn't even say that the site *does* either--it says it is considered a phishing and spamming site by advocates.) If you have a reliable source that says they aren't engaged in phishing or spamming, you can add something to the article saying so. If not, you can't. Brettalan (talk) 21:15, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I think Brettalan summed up well, but let me also point out that tagged's practice was to send out millions of emails saying it was from an acquaintance when it wasn't and claiming that I'll get something (a photo) that I won't. Based on that misrepresentation, I'm encouraged to provide them with my email password which they then use in a way that I did not authorize and that leads to their profit. On the surface, that sounds like phishing. As for criminal intent, two attorneys general argued that it was, in fact, criminal. Ucanlookitup (talk) 23:19, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


 * To use 'close to' and 'hasn't formally received criminal charges' in this context is inaccurate and not a fact. Tagged was investigated only and not charged, and Tagged voluntarily modified its processes even before the the settlement was reached. This is fact. According to the definitions that Wikipedia uses, Tagged did not partake in phishing or spamming and to reference outdated and unknown blogs does not validate the opinions these contributors present. I do not wish to delete what happened, but I would like to demonstrate that it is in the past. MarinaKSF (talk) 02:25, 25 November 2009 (UTC)MarinaK
 * I personally don't find the argument that it is "in the past" very convincing. First of all, they settled with NY and TX two weeks ago. Hardly ancient history. Secondly, it remains to be seen when and if they'll comply with the terms of the settlement which include specific changes to the registration process. Thirdly, regardless of how they behave in the future, the behavior documented here accurately reflects how they behaved in the past and is appropriate to include in an article about the company. Ucanlookitup (talk) 02:36, 25 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Tagged has been fully compliant with the new reforms and it DOES NOT remain to be seen. They turned off ALL viral invitations on the 8th of June 2009 but secondly the new process is totally compliant and has been for weeks. As part of the settlement, they have to use these reforms. Please see these sources for confirmation- and for further evidence, please see the screenshots of all these processes in place on Tagged here- . I agree Ucan that this information is appropriate and should be included in the entry, but under History and Controversy, and not in the OPENING sentences. In the Facebook and Myspace entries, their controversies are mentioned further in the entry and not as the leading sentences.


 * Facebook and Myspace are otherwise notable for many other things. I'm sorry this is inconvenient for your employers, but at present they are most notable for the controversy over and legal repercussions of their practices. I would agree, though, that you should be able to put in something based on the AP story linked above through http://www.cbs6albany.com/articles/tagged-1268226-settlement-adopted.html (I don't think the ref tags work properly on a talk page). I would propose something like "As a result of the settlements, Tagged had adopted reforms designed to eliminate the controversial practices." Fair? BTW, how do you get work representing a company on Wikipedia? I think it's something I'd be good at.Brettalan (talk) 23:20, 28 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Responding to the arguments regarding the terms 'phishing' and 'spam'.

It's true that there was the possibility to opt-out, but according to the citations provided, those options were presented in such a fashion that many people would not notice or understand them.

This proves that this was not phishing nor spam. There is no possible way to opt-out of either. While some people may not have seen the opt-out opportunities – they did exist and neither does with Phishing or Spam.
 * It proves neither. Please remember that the Spam was sent to people in the contact list, not people providing the contact list. The people in the contact list had no opportunity to opt-out. In regards to phishing, I'm not sure why you would think that the presence of an opt out means it's not phishing. By that definition it would be rather easy to avoid being called phishing, while still in fact phishing. Ucanlookitup (talk) 22:46, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

There's no question that passwords WERE acquired by Tagged.

That is completely incorrect and false. Tagged NEVER acquired any passwords. Like EVERY other social network site Tagged simply enabled people to submit their email address account password in the registration process. The password was not acquired by Tagged but passed as credentials to the email provider so the email box could be accessed by the user. Again – this is spreading misinformation and is portraying Tagged as doing something different with passwords than Facebook, MySpace and all the others. It is not – the process is identical as all other social networks and passwords are never acquired.
 * Completely incorrect and false? Users typed their passwords in - so they did acquire them. Perhaps they didn't store them. I would have no way of knowing that. Ucanlookitup (talk) 22:46, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Exactly. I don't understand how you can have passwords submitted to you and then pass them on (essentially use them) without aquiring them. I think it's well within the definition of aquired as it is used here. And, again, the statement says that they have been considered phishers and spammers by some advocates, and the references clearly support that.Brettalan (talk) 23:20, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

There are multiple sources that say that the site has been accused of both phishing and spamming.

And many of these same sources and sites have comments that counter these claims. This is not original research – it is stating the correct facts and eliminating the misinformation and conjecture.
 * What statement is misinformation or conjecture?Ucanlookitup (talk) 22:46, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

''If you have a reliable source that says they aren't engaged in phishing or spamming, you can add something to the article saying so. If not, you can't''.

The NYAG releases states itself that Tagged has changed its process. See this release for more detail
 * The NYAG said no such thing. At least not in the references you provided. You cite an announcement of the settlement and a blog by the company. Ucanlookitup (talk) 22:46, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

''Based on that misrepresentation, I'm encouraged to provide them with my email password which they then use in a way that I did not authorize and that leads to their profit. On the surface, that sounds like phishing.''

Sounds like phishing? – respectively disagree. Phishing is much more serious than a confusing or misrepresented email invitation. There is no doubt that Tagged has used – in the past – aggressive email invitation tactics that confused some people. That is well documented and by all means should be a part of the description. But it was not spamming in the true sense and it most certainly was not phishing in any way shape or form. Wikipedia should be accurate and NPOV – not incorrect and inflammatory. And Tagged has revised and improved all of its email invitation as well. MarinaKSF (talk) 21:15, 28 November 2009 (UTC)MarinaK.
 * With all due respect MarinaK, we're dealing with more than a "confusing" email. The NY AG did not accuse them of being "confusing". He accused them of identity theft and invasion of privacy. Ucanlookitup (talk) 22:15, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Not spamming in the true sense? I've never signed up for tagged.com, yet I have received dozens of false and unsolicited emails from them. How is that not spam? Ucanlookitup (talk) 22:21, 28 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Ucan, when did you receive these emails and exactly how many is 'dozens'? What was the nature of these emails? When was the last email you received? Did you contact Tagged directly regarding this issue or keep a record of the 'dozens' of emails you received? MarinaKSF (talk) 17:22, 29 November 2009 (UTC)MarinaK

Popularity

 * "In September 2009, Hitwise reported that Tagged.com ranked as the 3rd largest social networking site in the United States based on market share of monthly visits. Hitwise Sep 09 rankings"

This statement, while literally true, gives a misleading impression of the data on that site. The figures show that the US social networking site is utterly dominated by the two giants, Facebook and MySpace, which together account for over 88% of the market. Tagged's market share is estimated at only 2.38%. I've therefore changed this sentence from stating Tagged's ranking to stating their absolute share of the market. (Dif)

I've also removed the sentence cited to Social Networking Watch ("According to Social Networking Watch, Tagged.com was ranked 4th by Hitwise among social networking sites in September 2009...") as it's not consistent with what I see at Hitwise (http://www.hitwise.com/us/press-center/press-releases/social-networking-sept-09/). Not sure what's going on there; I presume Social Networking Watch is simply out of date, and that we should just refer to the original source. Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 13:46, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with both your changes. In general I'm uncomfortable with statements like "the third largest..." for the reason that you mention (it's true but misleading) but also because there is not a single agreed upon measure of size or popularity (i.e., number of users, number of visits, number of unique visits, etc. ) or the appropriate time period to consider (this month, this quarter, this year). Regarding Hitwise discrepancies, Hitwise data is available only by subscription. Subscribers get a whole lot of data which they can selectively interpret and present. I would think a press release directly from Hitwise would generally be preferable unless the secondary source is regarded as an expert in their own right and adds expert analysis-which is not the case with Social Networking Watch. Ucanlookitup (talk) 17:28, 25 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I respectfully disagree with both your points of view, and am starting to believe that this is getting to be unfair. Wikipedia should be accurate and NPOV – not incorrect and inflammatory. The Hitwise data is a press release, please see this reference under 'Press Releases' . To be co-operative, and I'm hoping we are all trying to be, how about we change it to- 'In September 2009, Hitwise reported that Tagged.com ranked as the 3rd largest social networking site in the United States with a market share of 2.38%'?
 * Actually, Hitwise said that in September 2009, tagged.com received the 3rd largest amount of visits. They did not say it was "ranked the 3rd largest social networking site" - a very different statement. They reported these results in October, so it is not true that "In September 2009, Hitwise reported". Look - I can show sites that report tagged.com having a much lower ranking in a variety of measures. Neilsen, Alexis and Comscore show less impressive results. There is an editorial judgement to be made, though. If we tried to show an accurate representation of the various rankings, the paragraph would quickly grow to give the subject undue weight and would require constant updating. The suggestion to include a representative market share is a good one. It gives the reader an accurate picture of the relative market position of tagged.com without giving the subject undue weight. Ucanlookitup (talk) 18:11, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm working on making this entry a fair and accurate one. Although the company does have controversies, which are and should be noted, the entry itself shouldn't be a controversial one. I'm going to work on this entry as long as it takes for all of us to reach a consensus and I'm hoping the end result will be something we're all really proud of. MarinaKSF (talk) 21:36, 28 November 2009 (UTC)MarinaK.

I see by your most recent edit that I was not clear about my point, so let me try again. Hitwise was careful about their wording so we need to be equally careful in paraphrasing it. You have made some subtle changes to the wording which completely changes the meaning. Hitwise said that "Tagged received 2.38 percent of visits in September 2009, the third-largest amount" First -they are making a very specific statement about September. The are not saying what happened in August or in October, or any other time period. By moving the position of "In September" (or more recently "In October"), you are changing the meaning to sound as if a less specific time period is being referenced. Second - and more importantly - Hitwise did not say (at least in this reference) that tagged is the " third largest social networking site in the US". It said that it received the 3rd largest number of visits in that particular month. I hope I've been a bit clearer. Ucanlookitup (talk) 01:35, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Chronological order in this entry
I've asked this question amongst Wikipedia administrators who have told me that it is natural to use chronological order within the entry. However, under the Controversy section, the Feb 2009 Qatar issue is mentioned last. Of course the NYAG section will remain, but can we follow the natural order of progression for this company and mention Qatar in Feb first? MarinaKSF (talk) 22:01, 28 November 2009 (UTC)MarinaK.
 * For future reference, questions posed to the helpdesk are answerable by anyone, not just administrators, although the particular contributor who answered your first question happened to be an administrator . Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 02:50, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The administrators full response was:

"In most cases it would be natural to use chronological order but it is not required and would depend on editorial judgment in a given context."


 * I would think notability trumps chronology. Let's leave the order alone Ucanlookitup (talk) 22:06, 28 November 2009 (UTC)


 * If you wish it to lead the Controversy section, then to be fair, I do not think it should be leading the introduction as well. MarinaKSF (talk) 22:17, 28 November 2009 (UTC)MarinaK
 * But it doesn't work like that... see WP:LEAD, "The lead... should define the topic, establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any notable controversies." Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 02:50, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * By leading the introduction, I meant that is the second sentence in the paragraph. I understand that it has to be in the introduction, but not the second sentence. I'd like to move it a bit further down the introduction. MarinaKSF (talk) 22:56, 1 December 2009 (UTC)MarinaK.

New addition of the Gilroy teacher?
Interested to know why only certain sections of this article are being referenced in Tagged's entry and that whenever I add other points in this article, such as the sex may have been consensual, and that the account is now taken down, are being deleted immediately?

Unfortunately, sex offenders will be found on all social networking sites, but to present this case, which may not have been rape, in such a biased way, is not adhering to the NPOV that all Wikipedia contributors should be adhering too. MarinaKSF (talk) 23:20, 1 December 2009 (UTC)MarinaK.
 * Perhaps because it is a detailed account being added to the History section for the website? The specific details of this case have little to do with the company and nothing in the cite suggests it does. This article isn't about whether this sad affair was consensual or not, nor about the general issues of children's online safety.   -- Escape Orbit  (Talk) 23:33, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I would not think this even needs to be discussed. But apparently it does. So here goes:

Three times you have added the phrase "Police have not said whether the sex was consensual." Above you suggest that it "may not have been rape". You might want to familiarize yourself with Statutory rape, but that is actually a different discussion. We should not include the statement in this article because:


 * It's a form of weasel words (see Weasel_words). You have introduced the idea that she may have consented without citing any actual source that she did
 * It's irrelevant. The paragraph is about the security features of tagged.com, not the behavior of the victim.
 * It's almost a direct quote from the newspaper article but not quoted
 * It's offensive! Are you really trying to shift the blame from tagged.com and the perpetrator to a 14 year old girl?

Ucanlookitup (talk) 01:21, 2 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Marina, I've been stunned by the way you've repeatedly added that to the article. It's really an appalling attempt to trivialise what happened.  And anyway, as Ucanlookitup alludes above, the police can't possibly state that a 14-year old gave consent, so the fact that they didn't is not informative.


 * Having said that, and not withstanding Escape Orbit's comment above, I think if the article is to mention this incident, it should also mention Tagged's response. The cited source states the profile was deleted, but it's not clear to me whether this was an action taken by the 32-year old or by Tagged.  Does anyone have a reliable source to clarify?  Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 03:56, 2 December 2009 (UTC)