Talk:PC Tools Spyware Doctor

message: So, I am going to log out for now, after saying this: I think www.antispyware.ws is likely a scam and shouldn't be on here. 
 
With that said, anyone who disagrees please post if/why, thanks. Howdoesthiswo 03:10, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed a spam link of theirs again just now... Cooldude7273 03:47, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

text: And again... but this time they saw it fit to add == level 2 headlines around their link... Cooldude7273 20:45, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

text: And yet again... and made both external link headlines. (trying to blend in?) Cooldude7273 02:12, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

text: What not link to the official one? What do you get out of hosting the file? Cooldude7273 20:00, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Not as far as I know. Cooldude7273 20:47, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've heard similar allegations before, but reliable sources documenting this is what we need. -- intgr [talk] 22:57, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There was a rogue product called "SpyDoctor" produced by someone else to trade off the "Spyware Doctor" name, there have been numerous other ones trying to rip off the name as well but Spyware Doctor is legit. See Spyware Warrior  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.15.188.6 (talk) 23:43, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: SpyDoctor is Spyware Doctor for short. -JC Talk to me My contributions 02:47, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non-offficial links 

message: An unregistered user (68.59.243.164) has again changed the opening line to 'Spyware doctor WAS a popular ...'?  I've changed it back to 'is'.
The same user changed:
The company was accused by some users of releasing version 5 before it was production quality.
to:
The company's credibility was greatly damaged for releasing version 5 before it was production quality.
I assume that this is also unwarranted, and have changed it back.  Or does anyone know that the stronger statement is justified?
 Earthlyreason 08:02, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, "greatly damaged" is certainly move POV than "accused by users" -- intgr 11:54, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed "popular" entirely since it is a pretty obviously biased term with no clear cutoff or defintion.--Wafulz 13:59, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: 'is' or 'was' popular

message: October 2007 issue? Today we`re 21th of September...at least here.. Virenque 07:49, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Huh? -- intgr [talk] 09:43, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  October 2007? 

message: I'm betting we need numbers or something to proove notability here?  I'm betting this has been widely download and used.  Mathiastck (talk) 12:15, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This product has been rated "Best Buys" and "Editors Choice" by major media outlets like PC Magazine and PC World multiple times. I'd say that'd notable enough. Cooldude7273 (talk) 05:41, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Yeah, and? Tons of corporations work like this. Including the big players like Symantec (Norton) and McAfee. Go but their product and what you are really buying is a one year subscription. Its how the industry works. Quit ya whinin. Cooldude7273 (talk) 06:17, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notability 

message: Just a note of scepticism relating to the suggestion that the starter edition has a smaller definition library. I just scanned an old computer with the the free scan-only version, uninstalled it and then  installed the starter version and and both reported 61 threats of various threat levels and types. Pssible of course that the full version has a larger definition file sstill, but that seems illogical, countering the whole point of a scan-only teaser. Looking forward to that reference! Seblopedia (talk) 16:58, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  licences 

message: I got spdoc.exe spyware doctor from 2-spyware as their recommended removal tool for an antispy safeguard infection. Neither the website nor the software made a big point of one needing to pay for a license before it actually removes any infections. Instead it scans the computer, finds a ton of 'infections' that include any old tracking cookies, then demands credit card details for a sign-up. This is extraordinarily bad faith on the part of both 2-spyware and spyware doctor, and anyone who actually enters their credit card details on an infected machine is being trained in doing precisely the thing that will lead to them being ripped off in future, as well as potentially exposing their data to any active infections. Nice. 90.194.30.148 (talk) 16:04, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  2-spyware link-up 

message: Added a few tags to denote POV and Tone issues. The entire article is written like an ad for Spyware Doctor, except a few statements that are flatly against it.  The article may need a re-wright to fix the POV from both sides.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.244.96.71 (talk) 18:25, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Major quality issues with article