Talk:Overselling

message: "As so many hosting companies oversell I think names of any specific ones should be removed" I agree, especially since every single web hosting company in the world oversells, otherwise nobody would make any money. Also, I removed the link to overselling.com because as we see by the WHOIS of the domain:
Administrative Contact:
   CirtexHosting
   John Xie ******@cirtexhosting.com)
And of course overselling.com has a link to cirtex's website, and they sell, what else, web hosting. LOL
No wonder Dreamhost and Hostgator were mentioned by name. Honestly this page should probably be deleted cause I don't think it was serving any purpose other than advertising for cirtex. - —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.25.92.182 (talk • contribs) 06:17, January 18, 2007
Is this not a link advertising article?
Seems odd that it should mention two specific companies and have hyperlinks to them.
I think they were originally placed there with affilliate links.
As so many hosting companies oversell I think names of any specific ones should be removed, or at least the hyperlinks. - —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.187.43.159 (talk • contribs) 05:11, January 1, 2007
I agree - no specific names (unless they're cited as legal cases or other mass-media reporting), as the page should discuss what Overselling is. I don't think it should be merged with Overbooking, but a link to it would make sense. - —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gbjbaanb (talk • contribs) 08:40, March 31, 2007
Please sign all comments to talk pages.  Thanks, Jaguara 05:08, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Start of talk page 

message: Pardon my wikithumping and pedantry but I re-razored the article since portions of it still came across to me as sneaky advertising.  It'd be great if someone who is more knowledgable about the subject can write a clear article, provide references and resources and the like. - Jaguara 04:48, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup needed badly 

message: The merge request (overselling/overbooking) had been on both pages since March, so I removed it. I agree with an earlier comment that these are different terms. There are similarities but they refer to very different lines of business. Retaining the clarity of having separate articles will ensure that the two words are not treated as identical. JamminBen 05:22, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge request removed 

message: The practice described is also used by ISPs when they provide more traffic volume than can be sustained in reality. I am not sure if it is called the same.
--- Arancaytar - avá artanhé (reply) 12:51, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That's true, but I'd just lump it all together as "The Internet."  Just about everything is oversold and even when someone claims they're not doing it, it doesn't mean it's true, or that someone above them isn't doing it.  S600 (talk) 10:11, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other industries 

message: The article states: "In 2007, Yahoo! Mail announced unlimited storage[2], which would be unsustainable if every user pushed the limits." This makes no sense. What does it mean to push the limits of the limitless? Is this an encyclopedia entry or a Zen koan?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.86.59.70 (talk) 19:32, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Yahoo email example 

message: Other than the definition itself, just about everything about this article was either wrong, irrelevant, or unprovable either way. 
For one, the Google & Yahoo mail examples were pointless because they're free.  You also can't prove  that they couldn't back their claims anyway, especially since they have hundreds of billions of dollars.  Until you can show they cannot provide it, saying they can't is a false accusation and probably shouldn't be done here. 
Examples of hosts are nothing more than free advertising for them, also not necessary.  The definition alone gives someone all the guidance they need--if they want to base their hosting choice on a meaningless buzzword that is nothing more than a marketing gimmick. 
I'd suggest keeping this type of drama at places like webhostingtalk.com, where it's mostly just used for competitor-bashing anyway.  
The reality of it is that the biggest hosts in the world are ALL oversellers.  They're not forcing customers to stay at gunpoint, which puts into perspective just how insignificant the topic and its related drama really is. 
You could also argue that all bandwidth is oversold from the top down, making it impossible for any data center to truly claim zero overselling, or any of the hosts within it.  This variance can also occur throughout the chain at any point: Upstream provider -> Data Center -> Hosts' Servers -> Reseller Accounts -> Shared Hosting, etc...  
It's really just a marketing gimmick regardless of which side of the fence you're on. Oversellers use it to draw people in and the smaller hosts have to make it look like a bad thing to justify charging more for less.  There are great oversellers & horrible overchargers, so hosting decisions are better based on things that matter and can actually be verified. S600 (talk) 10:07, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Just Cleaned Up The Mess 

message: It would be apt to add Mobile Phone Networks to this definition, such as Vodafone changing from "unlimited" mobile broadband to a small cap because they are unable to support users on their network.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.105.115.195 (talk) 14:59, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mobile Networks 

message: "It is not economically practical, environmentally reasonable, or technically feasible to provide dedicated access for every service to every customer"-how about some actual citations/proof for this biased statement(biased in favor of the isps who oversell their bandwidth).  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.50.89.172 (talk) 05:17, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, what do we do when an outside link is to a video? Or in the Deccan case, the video isn't even available? --Uncle Ed (talk) 14:46, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unsourced 

message: United Flight 3411 should be removed from this article. Flight 3411 has nothing to do with overbooking. The flight was fully booked, but not overbooked. Rather, Flight 3411 was an example of the aviation industry's "must ride" condition. A passenger was forcibly removed from Flight 3411 due to the need for a United crew member to be at the destination airport to staff a later flight. This is not overbooking, it is "must ride". --Westwind273 (talk) 08:48, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Remove United 3411 from the article 

message: The wiktionary definition of "Sell past the close" includes "overselling" as a synonym. This article addresses "overbooking" rather than "overselling" in the sense of selling past the close, or promising more than can be delivered. It would be helpful to address this ambiguity. Thanks. --Lbeaumont (talk) 13:29, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Don't sell past the close