Talk:Internet bot

message: This article is a stub, need lots of enhancements, and better style. Theres personal comments, "news" and othre crap. --Tei
This article needs some diagrams...so can easily understand....---Hardik  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.96.185.222 (talk) 05:24, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  grrr... 

message: I don't have a huge amount of time to work on this, but I'll clean it up a little. However, most of it appears to be total rubbish... 74.102.192.208 05:19, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree this article is awful! Looking back it was even worse, so congrats on the cleanup so far. I'm not sure why such a relatively important article is quite as bad as it is! - PocklingtonDan 16:24, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: This page needs a huge amount of work

message: But the real problem isn't style or lack of eloquence but rather the matter of proper definition, which is a little tricky in this case since "bot" is not much more than a pop culture term. It refers mainly to computer programs that emulate human activity. However, from this messy article the reader may deduce that all sorts of computer programs may be considered as bots. A computer virus, for example, is one notable mistake. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 89.138.196.209 (talk) 23:07, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Complete rewrite required. 

message: *The Tamil Nadu Forest Department website has recently changed their URLs and the links to their old site from references and notes used in the many Protected areas of Tamil Nadu articles and other south india related articles are now dead links. Is there a Bot that can go through these articles and update the links? Doing it all by hand will be a Herculean task.-Marcus 17:54, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Dead Linksbot

message: The facts are kinda interesting. But I guess there are many other examples. Shouldn't the FreeRice section be moved to the dedicated page FreeRice? The link could point at the anchor there. Not that I find it offtopic in Internet bot (keep a pointer there), but I just think it belongs to FreeRice. -- skiidoo (talk) 10:49, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  FreeRice 

message: I just cleaned up this talk page as per WP:Talk page guidelines. Please remember that this page is not a forum and that all discussion should be related to improving the article.Jasper Deng (talk) 00:53, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reminder:Talk page guidelines 

message: I have removed the FreeRice section. I don't understand how this section could have stayed here for so long without anyone noticing that all the references are garbage. Two separate Blogspots are the only references other than a Digg page (which just links back to more garbage anyway), and both of these blogs have very very few comments. One of the bloggers even claims in one of his most recent posts that the bot being discussed on this Wikipedia page accounts for 40% of his web traffic (and he hasn't posted again in over a year and, again, has barely any comments or any indication that he's not just a random blogspot that the original editor created for fun). Even if legitimate sources are found, someone has to rewrite that section so it's not just a meandering, out of date news story. The core story of bots being used to exploit a charity is interesting, but right now it's just trivia that makes the article look even worse than it already is. --BranER (talk) 13:57, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  the FreeRice section has to go 

message: The RFC 2616 and other oficial documents use also the term "user agent" for Intenet Bot, 
:The client which initiates a request. These are often browsers,   editors, spiders (web-traversing robots), or other end user tools.
See also user agent.  --Krauss (talk) 01:06, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cite user agent term 

message: I came to this article to learn about bots, because they are apparently large users of a website I manage. I find the article to be full of "sweeping statements", which may or may not be correct, I would not know. If any of these sweeping statements are true, or mainly true, they are worthy of inclusion, but they may not be true. There are only three links to sources or external articles - all relating to one small aspect of the article - and only one of these sources seems at all credible to me.
What the article needs is the attention of someone who is knowledgable about the topic, who would have no difficulty in revising it and  citing a range of external sources.
AlotToLearn (talk) 02:03, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. FrankSier (talk) 19:56, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article needs knowledgable editing and references 

message: The part of the article that talks about using bots to buy rare sneakers doesn't seem like it really belongs here. It's not a particularly common use for bots. Would it be okay to delete it? If not, we should at least move it out of the "helpful bots" section. I don't see why using bots to buy highly desired sneakers is considered any better than using bots to buy highly desired tickets (which is currently listed in the "malicious bots" section). Pikaryaa (talk) 21:08, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the sneaker-buying bot is an interesting example of a bot and is useful to have in the article. The use suggested for these bots could be described as malicious and/or helpful depending on who you are. This use also is not mentioned in the reference given. FrankSier (talk) 19:54, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

text: I have been reading about the broader issue of retail bots or shop bots that are targeting many niche or high profile products. Sneakers are one example, but their use is widespread.  There are examples such as high-end gaming GPUs that sell out instantly. These bots are often operated by groups who are making money from the resale.  This is similar to their use in ticket scalping.  I was thinking that maybe a new section for these bots would be good. Leecea (talk) 14:03, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Delete sneaker-buying section? 

message: I revised the definition and also made one of the sections more unbiased.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hfbdo1111 (talk • contribs) 19:45, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Small fixes