Talk:Web.com

Tags
I deleted the the POV- and advert-tag. The article is well referenced and I can see no Point of View or ad-like style here. Please elaborate your view here before you tag again.--Peter Eisenburger (talk) 13:57, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Merge request
The articles are about two different companies, not about two phases of the same company. So a merge makes no sense.--Peter Eisenburger (talk) 05:16, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I deleted the tag today because no other proposals were made.--Peter Eisenburger (talk) 13:11, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Future edits
Since Web.com sold the NetObjects product line, I am no longer interested in following the company on a regularily basis. Someone else, please? My last edit.--Peter Eisenburger (talk) 10:03, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

81.131.87.206 and 64.69.210.40 IP addresses and WebDotCom traceroute back to Web.com)
Company is trying to rewrite their history and create adverts Examples:

-Presenting founding of company as 1997 by David Brown when their own SEC filings show that the company was founded in 1999 by someone else. -Presenting Merger of Web.com as an acquisition when company’s SEC filing show that the deal was a “Merger of Equals.”

See:
 * Conflict of Interest Guideline
 * Biographies of Living People Policy —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skyylight (talk • contribs) 17:32, 13 July 2010 (UTC)


 * The article has been rewritten in a PR-like manner since this edit by an IP. "is a leading provider" etc. etc. the last independent version of the article was mine from 27 August 2009. Since I don't follow Web.com no more as a company I am interested in, I don't edit this article anymore. But it's sad to see how it has been destructed step-by-step.


 * Skyylight, it was a de-facto acquisition because Website Pros was the bigger company in the share exchange and soon Jeff Sibel had been replaced. As far as I can see, there's only one board member from the old Web.com left.--Peter Eisenburger (talk) 16:58, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Edit request to update and improve article
On behalf of Web.com via Burson-Marsteller, I am submitting an expanded and updated draft Wikipedia article for review by uninvolved editors. The current article is in critical need of improvement, as evidenced by the 5 banners and multiple "citation needed" tags displayed throughout. I've worked to address these tags by researching the company's history and drafting an accurate, neutral, and verifiable Wikipedia article, using appropriate sourcing. While the company's history is somewhat convoluted, given the mergers and name changes, I don't think the content is particularly controversial. Over the past few months, I've worked with Web.com to ensure this article's accuracy, and I seek uninvolved editors to review the proposed draft for completeness, neutrality, and reliability. I'm happy to address any concerns. I'd like to outline some concerns with the existing article and explain some of my proposed improvements: Again, I've saved my draft here, and I seek neutral editors to review and copy over the proposed content appropriately. The draft is not terribly long, so I'm hoping an editor will review and copy over the draft in its entirety. However, I am more than happy to split this edit request into multiple if reviewers prefer to only review one section at a time. Just let me know, and I'm happy to answer questions here or on my talk page. Thanks! Inkian Jason (talk) 17:06, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The "Company history" is almost entirely unsourced, and the 3 inline citations displayed direct readers to mostly inappropriate sourcing. I count 9 "citation needed" tags. Though not entirely inaccurate, some of the prose's wording is awkward is may be the reason for the 3rd banner tag regarding "weasel words". With my draft, I've worked to provide an overview of the company's history as clearly as possible.✅
 * I think at least 7 of the references are Web.com or Website Pros URLs, which explains a couple of the other banner tags regarding primary sourcing and reliability. I've eliminated use of primary sourcing in my draft, which relies entirely on reliable secondary coverage. The only appearance of Web.com's website is the official website link in the "External links" section, and I think reviewing editors will be satisfied with the sourcing used throughout the proposed article.✅
 * The draft's "History" section presents information chronologically, and clearly differentiates the company's history as Website Pros and Web.com as subsections. There have been multiple acquisitions and name changes throughout the company's history, so I've tried my best to explain these changes coherently, so readers are not confused. I've integrated the link to Web.com (1995 – 2007) appropriately.✅
 * In the current article, the prose goes straight into the history of Web.com and Website Pros, without providing much of a snapshot of the company in a current context. In my draft, I've started with a "Corporate overview" section to mention Web.com's size, products, leadership, office locations, and valuation, which are likely what readers are seeking, and arguably more important than the company's earliest history. I think this provides an appropriate and current summary of the company, and I hope editors agree with this approach.✅

I got your message and I am motivated to help you. It is a pleasure to help out. I promise we can achieve your goals. AmericanAir88 (talk) 20:24, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The draft is fantastic. It is much better than what is in the current article. I will make the change! AmericanAir88 (talk) 20:44, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I deleted the old article's code and added yours. Looks so much better AmericanAir88 (talk) 20:44, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for reviewing the draft and updating the article. Inkian Jason (talk) 20:53, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
 * My pleasure, anytime AmericanAir88 (talk) 20:59, 1 November 2017 (UTC)