Talk:Tagged (website)

message: Hi everyone. I came across this article in INC regarding the Tagged 2009 email invitation spam incident. I think it sheds new light and Tagged's side of the story on the matter and it is from a credible source too. I am wondering if anyone else had seen it and what you thought about referencing it for the Tagged article. 
http://www.inc.com/magazine/20110401/case-study-battling-a-media-and-legal-firestorm.html
As I know this is a sensitive topic - I thought I would start here on "Talk". thanks Goalloverhere (talk) 21:48, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I would say this looks like a useful source. As long as it's clear that the information is their side of the story, I would support including some of it. Brettalan (talk) 04:08, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: What an outrageous article.  The problems did not begin with a new registration process that went live in June 2009.  Just look at this article from Consumer Fraud Reporting warning against these very same emails back in January 2008.  The article's claim that "Coping with crisis was a new experience for Tseng, who had known little but success in his brief time as an entrepreneur" is simply nonsense, given that JumpStart copped the largest ever fine for spam in 2006 while Tseng was CEO, and that he was publicly named and shamed over the CrushLink scam as early as 2002. Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 16:04, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks for the input and consideration. I'll give it some additional thought. Goalloverhere (talk) 18:07, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

text:  Brettalan - thank you for the consideration and recognition that this is a reasonable and good source and provides additional perspective on the company and this particular issue. Adrian - with all due respect - and I am sincere when I say that because you are a committed and talented long time editor - your comments are troubling as it really appears that you have some kind of vendetta against Tagged and their founder. I don't think Wikipedia is supposed to be used as some kind of instrument to inflict punishment. Especially using such non notable sourcing and coverage as you cite in these particular examples some going back 10 years from a single article - not a lot of coverage whatsoever. The definition of what constitutes notability has always been a concern for me with this article as you may recall. Goalloverhere (talk) 18:24, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: And here I thought we had gotten past ad hominem attacks. Goalloverhere - pointing out inaccuracies of what appears to be a puff piece is not "some kind of vendetta". If you do bring in that article, you can reasonable expect that reliable source that contradict the article will be given equal weight. Ucanlookitup (talk) 23:46, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Goal, at the risk of you wanting to take back what you said about my consideration and such, I think it's perfectly valid for Adrian to point out that the source seems to be unreliable. And I certainly don't see why you have to bring up the issue of notability again. That said, I think the article can still be used in a limited fashion to show Tagged's side of the story, focusing on direct quotes from the company. Brettalan (talk) 04:44, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

text:  Brettalan - not going to take anything back at all - appreciate your consideration and point of view. Ucanlookitup - I have no intent in an "ad hominem attack" - just pointing out an opinion much like all of us do on this article. Calling the article "outrageous" and a "puff piece" seems like an attack of its own.  I have added the citation to the lead of the article and also added a sentence to the Bulk Mail section as well and hope this will be ok with everyone. Thank you. Goalloverhere (talk) 18:43, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: This is not a borderline case.  An article whose two major contentions are demonstrably false is not a reliable source and should not be given false credibility by citation in an encyclopedia article.  Brettalan – I understand what you're saying about using the article to show Tagged's response, but I don't see how we could do that without either misleading readers with false information or violating WP:SYNTH. Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 15:14, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

text:  Adrian - can you please clarify your position on this? I do not see how you should be judging on this matter in terms of what you consider false in an article from a credible publication. Thank you.Goalloverhere (talk) 15:37, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

text: Adrian - after additional consideration I agree this is not borderline - it is clear that a credible source reported on the incident and provided additional details helpful to the reader. Therefore I have undone your edit. Goalloverhere (talk) 00:26, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

text: I am confused. What is the problem? NCSS (talk) 00:15, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question for Tagged Editors - Inc Case Study on Tagged 

message: When you submit contact ticket they respond every time in formal manner without actual help\interaction. This is the only sign of real state of business.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.237.196.55 (talk) 08:12, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tagged support team 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Tagged. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080704181155/http://www.aotalliance.org/summit2007/speakers2007.html to http://www.aotalliance.org/summit2007/speakers2007.html#Greg_Tseng
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081007145254/http://sanjose.bizjournals.com:80/eastbay/stories/2007/04/23/daily41.html?jst=s_cn_hl to http://sanjose.bizjournals.com/eastbay/stories/2007/04/23/daily41.html?jst=s_cn_hl
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 22:08, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: :The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 
The result of the move request was: Consensus to move page and then disambiguate Tagged. (non-admin closure)  — YoungForever(talk)  23:43, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Tagged →  – The page views show that Tagged (web series) has around the same views, if not more (looking at the identical curves it would seem that the website is getting hits meant for the web series). Since neither is a primary, this should disambiguated. Gonnym (talk) 23:36, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 30 August 2020 

message: Clean your site up from all the scammers you let on tagged I just recieved a message on tagged by someone saying there from tagged & that I won $850,000.00 & to contact them on a email address I responded over tagged & not there email site telling them if this was not a scam then I want to talk to a tagged representative & they removed there message from tagged before I could write it down you dont do a very good job on making this site good for people who are truly looking for love you let women put nude photos over tagged but when I tell these women what I think of them you block me so get it right & clean your site because it is a big joke 49.182.87.170 (talk) 11:46, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  I have tried to voice a concern but you block it because it's the truth & you can not handle it