Talk:McAfee SiteAdvisor

message: The screenshots need to be updated.  Currently they reflect the old look, before SiteAdv was acquired by McAfee. --Tuvok 01:17, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Completed -- I've updated bot the FF and IE versions of the screenshots with the latest version of SiteAdvisor. Matthew Fenton [t/c] 11:37, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Screenshot Updates

message: Just want to add some information regarding the system resources for siteAdvisor.
My personal experiment is about 9000K. Dilbert5756 00:36, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  System resource for site advisor 

message: After testing the listed websites:
    "coffeecup.com
     tomcoyote.com
     lavasoft.de
     spamhunters.com
     dknoppix.com"
McAfee SiteAdvisor returned all sites as 'green' (no problems).
I appreciate that the article reads "currently or have been" but surely McAfee are correcting their errors if they revert websites from red to green.  (to be fair to McAfee, inc. in addition to complaining about controversy, the article should also cover what McAfee has done to correct this problem).
Matty2002 12:11, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversy? 

message: The entirety of the "controversy" section has been removed, for reasons that are not entirely clear to me. Does the person who removed these sections have an interest in protecting McAfee or Site Advisor from unfavorable reporting?
It's Shane from McAfee SiteAdvisor here. We asked Wikipedia to review the section called "Invalid Website Ratings" on July 24. Wikipedia investigated and agreed with our points and removed the section on August 8. In our view, the problem with the section was that it elevated a personal dispute about one site rating to make huge claims that all or most of our test results were not valid. To be clear, McAfee did not remove the section. McAfee doesn't claim that its SiteAdvisor service is perfect, and provides lots of opportunities to contact us and dispute our test results. One way is to e-mail complaints shift 2 siteadvisor.com.SiteAdvisor 21:13, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  It seems someone has a bias in favor of McAfee 

message: I have posted information on SiteAdvisor that indicates the company uses questionable tactics. Other editors have removed those comments. I don't get it.  Why should a criticism of the product not be allowed?   The controversy over this product should be allowed.  I am not commenting on the "article".  I am commenting on SiteAdvisor and thus the comments have a valid place in the article.  I at first inadvertantly posted material from the Talk pages, but removed those at the request of the first editor.  It seems completely out of context for Wikipedia editors to remove legitimate commentary from an article.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rbe2004 (talk • contribs) 20:27, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: PC Magazine's Review Section contains some chronicaling of the criticism posted in the article, including their own SiteAdvisor rating. Rbe2004 (talk) 20:44, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The total elimination of legitimate criticism of McAffee is not justifiable.  This page is nothing more than an advertisement for SiteAdvisor.  There are sustantial criticisms of the product and they deserve a place on this page.  Rbe2004 (talk) 13:33, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See WP:V. Unsourced criticism has no place here, whether or not you think it's "legitimate". Find sources to back up your statements, otherwise it's original research and must stay out.Cúchullain t/c 17:55, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

text: The bias here is to allow what essentially amounts to a McAffee ad on Wikipedia.  I respectfully submit, then, if no mention of a well-known criticism is to be permitted, that at the very least the impartiality of the article be called into question. An article on the issue I raise is in the process of being written now by a major computer news journal. Rbe2004 (talk) 18:34, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And no, forum discussions are not reliable sources.--Cúchullain t/c 17:57, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Deleted legal threat by 87.52.69.125. By the way, the references currently cited in the criticism section are not reliable sources. Unless such sources can be found, the section will be removed. Feezo <FONT SIZE="-2">(Talk)</FONT> 15:49, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Censorship

message: There is no question that the neutrality of this article is in doubt.  It amounts to an advertisment for McAffee when a well known, if difficult to document, contraversy exists.  I am requesting that until the dispute is resolved, the above banner remains.  Resolution does not mean a summary deletion by other editors. It has been suggested on this very page by employees of McAffee that they have requested and accomplished the removal of criticism. This is a poor reflection on the "editorial process". Simply removing the banner, as you have done, amounts to an edit war, prohibited by Wikipedia.  I am requesting that this be handled in a manner other than summary removal of the "Neutrality" banner which sends users to the discussion page.Rbe2004 (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Cúchullain, please see my comments on your talk page.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rbe2004 (talk • contribs) 19:04, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Shell Kinney has said everything there is to say on this. Rbe2004, your first step will be trying to find reliable sources discussing criticism of SiteAdvisor, if any are to be found. Until then, the material must stay out.--Cúchullain t/c 06:25, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Actually, the article does not seem McAfee-friendly to me.  Rather the contrary.  Perhaps the pendulum has already swung too far the other way?  Ocdnctx (talk) 20:42, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Neutrality

message: No information on the website? You don't have to download the browser add-on in order to test websites? No information on the add-on?
-- Kai talk 01:57, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Website? 

message: cautionary and warning reports show sites SiteAdvisor seems to consider just valid .
85.64.19.31 (talk) 16:33, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  report examples seem incorrect 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on McAfee SiteAdvisor. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.siteadvisor.com/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 13:49, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on McAfee SiteAdvisor. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141012233952/http://www.siteadvisor.com/ to http://www.siteadvisor.com/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:37, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I have just deleted a complaint in the Criticism section of McAfee SiteAdvisor that appeared to be obviously invalid.  The intro points out that the McAfee SiteAdvisor (a.k.a. WebAdvisor) is a service that reports on the safety of web sites by crawling the web and testing the sites it finds for malware and spam.  Though that’s the type of business that McAfee does, the article criticizes the service for “only” rating sites based on the risk of malware or spam, not also rating business practices and user reviews.  It even notes the fact that ratings on business practices are generated by the BBB, as most people would expect, which further invalidates the complaint.  And those who are looking for reviews can search for them (e.g., use Google).
Just in case someone thinks that full deletion was non-PC or something, I'd suggest the following re-write if deletion is too painful:
The McAfee SiteAdvisor, later renamed as the McAfee WebAdvisor, is a service that reports on the safety of web sites by crawling the web and testing the sites it finds for malware and spam.   As one might expect, McAfee doesn’t report on business practices (try the Better Business Bureau website) or user reviews (do a search for McAfee SiteAdvisor reviews).
The service was originally developed by SiteAdvisor, Inc, an MIT startup[1] first introduced at CodeCon on February 10, 2006[2] and later acquired by McAfee[3] on April 5, 2006. Since its founding, it has received criticism for its improper rating of some sites, and more importantly the length of time it takes to resolve complaints.
Charlie917 (talk) 12:39, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Invalid complaint deleted 

message: The current name of the IE add-on seems to be "McAfee WebAdvisor BHO". This should be included in the article? -71.174.176.136 (talk) 19:21, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm unable to find any reputable sources for this. Nanophosis (talk) 17:49, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  McAfee WebAdvisor BHO 

message: This article was apparently marked as "questionable notability" in 2015, but WP:COMPSEC has rated it high importance - a rating that I must agree with; I believe SiteAdvisor absolutely meets notability standards. That being said, before I change the template, I'd like to get additional opinions. Notable or not? Nanophosis (talk) 17:33, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notability? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on McAfee SiteAdvisor. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080430154753/http://www.codecon.org/2006/program.html to http://www.codecon.org/2006/program.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080217071037/http://www.makeyougohmm.com/20070818/4731/ to http://www.makeyougohmm.com/20070818/4731/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:24, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018) 

message: Is That a. Legitimate Website to Purchase Anything From? 2600:8801:10C:AD00:98EE:5745:C0F6:38CE (talk) 19:13, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  KIKSUOS