Talk:CNET Networks

message: :Sounds like an advert to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.168.253.157 (talk) 12:39, 29 November 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Could be interesting. They're little more than glorified domain name campers, anyway. — NRen2k5 07:17, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Dont they own com.com aswell Ferdia O'Brien The Archiver And The  Vandal Watchman (Talk) 19:21, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Genre Domain Names

message: These guys are currently attempting to install spyware on to their visitor's computers. The only reason that I noticed was that I have Spybot Search and Destroy running resident on my PC. I don't know whether it is deliberate policy on their part or the result of some hack attack or virus infection by others but I think it only fair that we warn our visitors in case they want to avoid spyware. Under most circumstances I would just delete such links but in this case they point to the websites belonging to the subject of the article so it's not really an option... -- Derek Ross |  Talk 03:04, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Spyware

message: Article says "In October of 2000 CNET Networks acquired ZDNet for approximately 1.6B USD". Is that correct? Or should it be 1.68 million USD? --bodnotbod 04:46, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Fact check

message: CNet was involved in a controversy with Google in August. The issue being that CNet used Google searches to get and publish information of Google CEO Eric Schmidt. Following this, Google refused to give any material or press releases to CNet for a year (ending July 2006). Can we include this in the article? I'm not able to get any external links for verification as I'm at work right now and a lot of news sites are filtered here. Please look it up and tell me if it's a good idea to include it in the article. Jam2k 11:10, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Issue with Google

message: What is with all the external links?  This article just seems like a huge advertisement for CNet...PaulC/T+ 22:41, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, the international sites were actually what I was mostly referring to.  They seem very out of place in the article. PaulC/T+ 13:13, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  all the external links... 

message: Having just come from the Lego page, I think the article's title should be CNet, not CNET (or, for that matter, Cnet), in order to remain consistent.  It's the letter C, followed by the word Net. 204.145.242.1 22:42, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: CNET seems to be the official capitalization according the CNET website. (see the footer for the best examples, such as "About CNET Networks" and "©1995-2006 CNET Networks") Binary 05:40, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, but LEGO is the official capitalization according to the Lego website () and the current Wikipedia policy is to use "Lego" rather than "LEGO". ;) This page ought to be consistent with that. 204.145.242.1 00:45, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Capitalization 

message: Nothing on CNet's old GameCenter site? Yeah, it was shut down in 2001 when they bought GameSpot, but I'm still surprised it wasn't even mentioned here... RobertM525 22:43, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  CNet GameCenter? 

message: This article is full of blatant marketing lines. The "Content" section even includes the following quote, written in first person:
Some examples of our content include:
I think most of this article is blatant marketing and completely NPOV. Most of the external links do not even belong on this page. The external links either go to properties important enough to have their own articles (and then those articles should be linked) or they are not important enough to have as an external link. It appears like CNET is using Wikipedia for their own SEO.
SgnDave 20:40, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've reverted back to my last edit in June due to copyright and POV problems, with a few changes. --- RockMFR 20:37, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blantant marketing in the article 

message: I've noticed that the podcast section is swelling, anyone think should this become a separate page?  tcardone05 03:49, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Split?

message: Maybe we should get this page locked. Raving members of GameSpot's forums are planning a raid on cNet's wiki page. Freyar 21:50, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's been protected for a week. Natalie 21:58, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good. If you're mad at CNET, it doesn't make sense to make the Wikipedia editors suffer. Optichan 22:00, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Shouldn't there be at least a 'Criticism' section to shortly detail those events (and of CNet's management's reactions?). Just watching the events fold, it's pretty much a mileston in CNet's history Poisonborz (talk) 17:16, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Agreed, but we’d have to be careful. There’s so much wrong with CNet, that a criticism section would quickly overshadow the rest of the article. Not that I would personally have anything against that, having firsthand experience with CNet’s lousy policies, but it wouldn’t reflect well on Wikipedia. — NRen2k5 09:26, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Protection

message: It was suggested that the Download.com article be merged into this one. There wasn't a section for it on this talk page so I took the liberty of starting it. Discuss. — FatalError 00:04, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge from [[Download.com]] 

message: Something is truly wrong with the CNET websites!  I can't connect to GameSpot, I can't connect to my profile on MP3.com, I can't connect to my profile on TV.com, and I can't connect to GameFAQs!  In fact, I can't connect to any website at all!  Can somebody please fix all of the broken CNET websites? --Angeldeb82 (talk) 15:12, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: CNET's websites are completely broken!

message: The watchbol.com link should be changed to cnet.com/live as this is where all the Podcasts now stream from.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.100.59.195 (talk) 15:49, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Podcasts 

message: First of all the titles shouldn't dance between the website and the site name, and also it seems that there are some "websites" that are more just a part of the CNET website (www.cnet.com)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ayhnjroo (talk • contribs) 01:41, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Websites

message: Article says it is defunct. However, it is still operating as CNET. Therefore we can't say it's defunct!--Lester 08:41, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why is it defunct? 

message: IMO, this article makes it seem as if CNET doesn't exsist anymore by ,the use of the word "was" in the first sentence. I think the article needs a resturcting, so it appears as if CNET is still operating (which it is, very much so!)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.146.48.122 (talk) 21:24, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: This is exactly what I came to this discussion page to say.  This article's very structure is deceptive to the average reader, most of whom are probably coming to learn about CNET.com. 98.82.34.167 (talk) 04:57, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I made the change to a more logical reading, but another editor saw fit to revert it, thus confusing everyone who comes here looking for info.  Fine.  This is hardly an article I could give two shakes about, my work is done here. 98.82.34.167 (talk) 17:35, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  The use of was