Talk:WeatherBug

Recurring Vandalism/Edits by Weatherbug Employees?
This article is repeatedly being edited to omit all references to weatherbug's spyware/adware issues, and any mention of competing products. These actions do not seem very ethical to me. 71.115.146.55 22:17, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually, we have been requesting someone from Wikipedia explain to us why Weather Channel's definition is basically a wonderful advertisement for their company. Also, in the spyware section, it claims many technicians.... without any source documentation. Did Wikipedia hire a polling company and what was that based on?. Also, there were links at the bottom to download not only WeatherBug, but our competitors. On Weather Channel's ad definition page, there are no download offered for WeatherBug or any other competitor. How many download software pages offer free downloads to competing products. That's a case of vandalism by one of our WeatherBug employees. It seems that one or two wikipedia editors don't really like our product and have posted personal opinions and competing products on our page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 38.118.78.4 (talk • contribs).


 * Well, I personally spent one entire Saturday, some time ago, fixing a relative's computer after it had been infected by Weatherbug, so it doesn't really surprise me if other folks have a low opinion of it. In the tech shops I've worked in, it has been common consensus that it is malware. Jonathunder 18:24, 22 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Thats a valid point and that is Your Opinion. Obviously, someone didn't have any details on the machine. I can't say what the issue was, but it may be a bad download or maybe it had nothing to do with Weatherbug at all, or maybe your firewall wasn't set to recognize the program, so everytime it ran, they intentionally tried to interfere with Weatherbug, causing problems. I find that in a growing number on our support cases, as soon as someone sets their firewall or other security settings to recognize our program, the problems are solved. But this is an online encyclopedia. Definitions of applications that's been downloaded by 70 million people, shouldn't be left to be edited because of one person's opinion when we don't know what the issue was, as I hope you'll agree. And I'm sure there are tons of people who claims that their computer crashed because there was too many legitimate number of programs, but without the facts, we shouldn't make statements that are not true. I just checked Accuweather and Weather Channel's wikipedia definitions and there isn't any competing products offered on their pages. I would love to have you speak to our CTO, to share your impressions about us. I don't expect our Wikipedia definitions to say WeatherBug is the greatest thing since sliced bread like the Weather Channel's definition, which appears to be written by their Press Release department. For Example, if someone changed the Wikipedia definition of Wikipedia to lead with the whole John Siegenthaler, Sr./Kennedy Assasination debate a few weeks back, you would probably say Hey, that was one tiny part of what's an awesome community creating an online encyclopedia and trying to take things out of context. Well, I think we have a right to feel similarly slighted when people put links to our competitors in our definition when no other program is attacked this way, or untrue statements like many technicians report problems..... It's just my opinion. But I would like to welcome you or any other wikipedia editors contact us with questions, concerns, or anything you like to ask. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 38.118.78.4 (talk • contribs).


 * hmm, i think the question is if weatherbug's definition contained complements that were jus as unsourced or even more than those somewhat more negative statemens, would the weatherbug employees be changing the page. and i think the answer to that question is a resounding yes, because weatehrbug employees are honest hardworking inviduals like the rest of us. theyre also nice by welcoming us to contact them and come on people they dont want to feel slighted. its almost like theres a conspiracy against weatherbug, because i dont see how a program that can save your life should get this kind of mistreament Erohwproc (talk) 08:13, 18 March 2009 (UTC)


 * WANT TO KNOW WHY IT GETS PEOPLE MAD?! BECAUSE IT IS CAPABLE OF INSTALLING ITSELF FOR NO REASON OTHER THAN TO ANNOY THE USER!  MY COMPUTER WAS INFECTED WITH IT ONCE!  I NEVER DOWNLOADED IT, RAN ANY INSTALLERS FOR IT, ANYTHING!  IT JUST POPPED RIGHT UP!--Dullstar (talk) 02:29, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Years ago, I visited the National Geographic site. Suddenly "something" was downloading onto my machine so fast I couldn't pull the manual disconnect. It was weatherbug. I never found a program or manual method to get rid of it and had to live with the multiple programs it installed and its' advertising for gambling in the Caribbean, and a few other things I'd never heard of. I finally got rid of it by reformatting my hard drive. Despite the protestations of saintly innocence, do I still hate the weatherbug scumbags, even after all these years? YOU'D BETTER BELIEVE IT!76.20.48.242 (talk) 03:39, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Spyware?
Definitely not spyware? I thought it was. Good thing I'm using a Mac. --WikiFan04Talk 4:32, 30 Jul 2005 (CDT)


 * I concur that WeatherBug is spyware. While the concept of the program is benevolent, the purpose of the program is malevolent. This also brings up concerns with similar programs such as The Weather Channel's Desktop Weather application. Your best bet is to use an RSS reader and the RSS feed for your local National Weather Service office or other weather service. If you don't know the website for your country's weather service, browse this list compiled by the South African Weather Service. --Bushido Hacks 12:29, 2 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Well I don't. The WeatherBug is not spyware and the the ads are only in the program window.  This means no popup when the program is minimized.  Red1530 00:04, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I can't speak for anyone else's personal experience, but my antivirus lit up with three different trojans when I tried to install weatherbug about a year ago.

72.195.189.98 (talk) 01:49, 24 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Which ones? --FOo (talk) 01:51, 24 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Ah, but doesn't spyware install itself without the user's consent? That's how WeatherBug wound up on my computer.  And its forgiveness beg screen is sickening. --Dullstar (talk) 02:25, 25 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Everyone is missing the point. It was NOT spyware - it was the worst.  All it did was install (many) other things (some obviously adware and others of completely unknown purpose) and fight like ***l to reinstall after every attempt to clean it off.  But the lawyers at Weatherbug were telling the (legal) truth - weatherbug itself was not SPYWARE.76.20.48.242 (talk) 22:39, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I remember when OS X first started notifying users of other applications trying to access their Contacts. Right after upgrading to the first version of OS X that did that, I received an alert that Weatherbug was trying to access my Contacts. Definitely spyware. I see now that you cannot even download Weatherbug Lite for Mac anymore, and there is absolutely no mention of why it was removed. 68.71.70.33 (talk) 06:31, 19 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I remember in the 90's that the only easy way to remove it was to reinstall the OS(win 9x and later). It used malware methods to prevent its removal. On top of that it would work like a Trojan and download and install sponsors programs. I cannot speak for the state of the present company nut since I can find other alternatives I won't give them the chance to repeat history. ProfTheory (talk) 21:22, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

"Support FAQ"
The article had a section called "support FAQ" that seemed to be little other than a Weatherbug advertisement. I've removed it. --Mr. Billion 03:56, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

The sub-header Spyware, adware, and other concerns. Does it actually make sense in this context. Spywareguide.com further clarifies the situation by calling WeatherBug "ad-supported software". And isn't spyware a software that uses a persons computer as a means of collecting information[in whatever form] without consent, and/or knowledge, usually, and not just simply displaying "ads". I really hate knit picking but I thought I'd let you know --AF1987 06:31, 8 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't believe spywareguide.com, then, because on my computer it installed without consent. I'm glad I use Ubuntu Linux now instead of XP.--Dullstar (talk) 02:27, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

"Delete it"
Title says it all. Delete it, its an ad all over. 69.229.11.186 01:24, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Garbage-ware
I see many definitions about WeatherBug, in most cases WeatherBug employees trying to convince people that the software is entirely harmless and asking for proof of malware behavior, this is absolutely laughable for IT professionals that have to deal with these type of garbage-ware, for any person wishing to test the software I recommend installing XP or any other Microsoft OS on a Virtual environment, install WeatherBug and in a few minutes you'll notice that your browser has been hijacked, you'll observe some estrange new search engine set as default, a new toolbar, etc. We have observed that the behavior varies, from time to time, but the result is the same, WeatherBug is ad-ware and Malware, define it any way you want but still garbage. If you use Windows products, DO NOT INSTALL THIS GARBAGE. If you use Linux, true weather options are built-in on some Ubuntu versions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.184.122.104 (talk) 19:24, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Major problems with this article.
Hello all, and thank you for your contributions to this page. I edited this page years ago under a different account and only recently revisited the article. I notice a lot of extraneous information now, especially re: ownership of the weatherbug software and partnerships of the parent company. While we all appreciate the interest in this article and the extra information, I think we can also agree the article needs to stay more on target. With that in mind, I'm going to remove a lot of the additions. Any thoughts? --pettyifrogger — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pettifrogger (talk • contribs) 18:49, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

why do we have encyclopaedic entries on mobile weather apps?
Reading the comments here it sounds like people want to turn tech support woes into an Encyclopedia. Can we just scrap all of these minor entries? I don't feel educatedJawz101 (talk) 15:53, 1 January 2021 (UTC)