Talk:CNET

	This article is part of WikiProject Websites, an attempt to create and link together articles about the major websites on the web. To participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.WebsitesWikipedia:WikiProject WebsitesTemplate:WikiProject WebsitesWebsites
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Computing.

This redirect--and the corresponding lack of an article on CNET.com--does a major disservice to most readers, who are coming here to learn about the current website with which they have some familiarity. CNET.com is still a very much active site, a top site at that, yet this redirect takes the reader to a website that starts out "CNET Networks, Inc. was a media company". I am going to take steps to help the average reader find what he is looking for. 98.82.34.167 (talk) 05:01, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Inaccurate to suggest that CBS is deleting CNET reviews

Hi all, full disclosure: I am the senior social media manager at CNET.

This statement in the introduction about CNET is inaccurate: "CNET also review some products, but product reviews are monitiored by CBS and CBS may force CNET to take down a review."

CNET has not been forced by CBS to take down a review. In fact, the Dish review is still on the site: http://reviews.cnet.com/digital-video-recorders-dvrs/dish-hopper-with-sling/4505-6474_7-35566943.html

CNET's policy is that it will not, in the future, review specific products that are involved in active litigation with CBS, but a review has not been taken down.

I propose to delete the statement in the intro.

Sources: CNET official statement (at bottom of review): http://reviews.cnet.com/digital-video-recorders-dvrs/dish-hopper-with-sling/4505-6474_7-35566943.html

Nathanbransford (talk) 16:56, 14 January 2013 (UTC)NathanBransford[reply]

LOL, fix your download links so it doesn't try to install computer-corrupting Coupon Companion c**pware. I mean seriously, surprised that Google and Mozilla hasn't downranked you to unsafe, yet. Yeah, it's really gotten that bad for people visiting the site that they get turned off from cnet/download.com links. Not trying to be mean and know it probably not your area but something that had to be said! 71.196.246.113 (talk) 19:28, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, for a while I had actually believed CNET was (Somewhat) reputable, what a huge joke. I would personally suggest every operating system just block their bloatware, MSE too. CBS has also long had control over the media and what the general public will end up hearing because of said lies, that's a virus and a parasite if you ask me.. Install packages are really REALLY too confusing for even a pro to try and decipher, so really there is no reason to download anything from their site if you aren't smart enough to do a little research. CBS also controls many other companies and when you start digging, you'll know.≠ — Preceding unsigned comment added by GenericDrone (talk • contribs) 19:42, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The malware distribution is also documented and discussed on Download.com. Most spam links disguised as reviews were presumably good faith references, and unsuited for a bot removal. Stand-alone external references to the malware site could be handled by a bot, but I've no clue how to suggest this, there was also no discussion on WP:SBL so far. –Be..anyone (talk) 06:31, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Installation of adware/malware without user permission

II am a regular Linux user and an occasional Windows user. On January 21st 2014 at 0:30, using Windows 7, I downloaded Ghostscript for Windows from download.cnet.com. It was near the top in Google and since I never had had any major problem with that website before I did not bother to choose another one. I was a bit surprised to see a fullscreen popup with ads appearing but I managed to close it rather easily without even reading and without accepting anything. I did not think about this anymore until today, after having experienced several occurrences of unexpected and heavy disk activity, when I noticed that an unknown program named Mobogenie was first in my taskbar. Checking browser history and file dates, I could immediately see that Mobogenie.exe had been installed at the same time as Ghostcript. Looking at the list of automatically started programs (msconfig.exe/startup) I noticed Mobogenie, Conduit Search Protect and nengine.dll. I could uninstall Mobogenie but had to restart Windows before I could uninstall Conduit Search Protect. I also removed the 3 entries from the startup of course. As you can easily figure out on the web, those programs are adware/malware which collect your data and attempt to hijack your browser search engine default and home page (though I did not experience this). I must also mention that Windows protection feature ("Do you want to allow program XXX to make changes on your computer") was active. I guess the authorization was taken by cheating with my authorization of the Ghostscript installer. I have now blacklisted download.cnet.com. Cheers, Alexandre Alexandre Oberlin (talk) 21:49, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why is the criticism section devoid of all the IT and CyberSec professional claims that attest and scream that CNET is a malware nest? 63.239.65.11 (talk) 19:41, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cnet

Doesn't Wikipedia's style guide demand the article be spelled "Cnet" since it's not an acronym? --Makkachin (talk) 20:15, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding bundling

Diveh-sepid (talk) 15:56, 28 July 2013 (UTC) I suggest CNET pay attention to numerous requests to either stop bundling "other" software with the requested downloads or at least make it really clear. I am quite surprised that the main article does not delve more deeply into this matter. CNET has had a stellar reputation which is being (IMHO) harmed by bundling; even an optional subscription fee is far better than risking getting unrequested software. Diveh-sepid (talk) 15:56, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge from Download.com

download.cnet.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

One article to document and discuss the Download.com malware should be good enough, it is anyway only a subdomain download.cnet.com at the moment. Merging the talk pages could be tricky, some BOLD editor risking copy and paste and archive might be able to manage this. –Be..anyone (talk) 06:48, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. While Download.com is owned by Cnet, it is a highly used website that is notable on its own.Frmorrison (talk) 14:27, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Download is a waste of time and NOT operated by CNET, they SOLD OUT in the worst meaning of term. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.155.78.174 (talk • contribs)

I disagree too. Download.com was a pretty big distribution site for programs, and remains a large one for malware. A user wondering about download.com is not at all served by having to browse assorted bullshit trivia about Cnet. These should remain separate, as they are separate concepts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.91.173.34 (talk) 21:07, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not done –Be..anyone (talk) 19:42, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on CNET. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080829001159/http://www.cbscorporation.com:80/news/prdetails.php?id=3503 to http://www.cbscorporation.com/news/prdetails.php?id=3503

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:39, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 7 external links on CNET. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:44, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 10 August 2016

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus for the move (non-admin closure) — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 04:29, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

CNET → CNet – It's not an acronym, so "grand-capping" it as "CNET" is against MOS:CAPS and MOS:TM (cf. Sony not SONY, etc.) The SCREAMING ALL-CAPS is just one of their former logo stylizations. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 09:09, 10 August 2016 (UTC) --Relisting. Anarchyte (work | talk) 06:38, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom (isn't this one that can just be moved without an RM?) Randy Kryn 12:04, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nominator. And just to take one point: I don't want the readers' eyes poked by this kind of excess. Tony (talk) 12:39, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Unlike Sony, the majority of this article's sources, the majority of other reliable sources, including books, academic journals, and the company itself all use all-caps in running text. Given that the minority of sources can't even decide on "Cnet" versus "CNet", why not go with what the large majority of sources and the company use - which will also be what our readers are most familiar with. Dohn joe (talk) 16:38, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Their own site has it has CNET and per Dohn Joe. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:04, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support move to CNet. There is no way we can allow "CNET" to stay (@Lugnuts: we don't allow allcaps even if their own site uses it) and it appears "CNet" is more common among the other options. I could be wrong on the comparison, though. ONR (talk) 05:53, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
User:Old Naval Rooftops: did you see my point right above Lugnuts, that the majority of reliable sources, both in the article itself and via a Google Books search, use the all-caps version? Dohn joe (talk) 15:14, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom and the spirit of WP:TM. Dicklyon (talk) 16:02, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME and Dohn joe. I believe every rule has exceptions. A quick search would show that Wikipedia would be in an extreme minority not to use CNET. Nohomersryan (talk) 20:43, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – The full-caps spelling has always been dominant in sources since the 1990s, this is not a case of mere styling. Even when the company's logo style was all-lowercase and included an ornamental pipe ("c|net"), commentators still called them CNET. Besides, if you argue to de-cap, then why keep the camel-case "CNet"? House style would argue for "Cnet" then (which I don't endorse either). — JFG ^talk 01:04, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per JFG and Dohn joe. Calidum ¤ 02:57, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Dohn Joe--John123521 (Talk-Contib.) RA 10:42, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on CNET. 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.cnetnetworks.com/aboutus/history.html
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0%2C%2C286315%2C00.html
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20170519041229/https://www.joomag.com/magazine/18008833685-activation-key-for-symantec-norton-antivirus-360-2017-norton-activation-online-norton-activate-norton/0452962001493032432 to https://www.joomag.com/magazine/18008833685-activation-key-for-symantec-norton-antivirus-360-2017-norton-activation-online-norton-activate-norton/0452962001493032432
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.btobonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=%2F20070301%2FFREE%2F70301001%2F1078
Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.pcmag.com/article2/0%2C2817%2C2384913%2C00.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:30, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]