Talk:Comparison of content-control software and providers

hardware section

This section seems somewhat problematic because there are so many NAT/firewall devices, and most are not bought and/or used for the purpose of web filtering. Yet they have that capability. Your run-of-the-mill WiFi gateway/router has the capability to block IP nos and URLs. The distinction I suppose is if the device has the capability to subscribe to an ongoing human maintained list, and/or has some sort of heuristics to do filtering. But even if the device has that capability, are those devices bought and deployed for that purpose? If they're not already notable for being bought and deployed for that purpose, then their inclusion in this page would serve only as promotion, a violation of WP:NPOV. To decide what should be included will require a bit of research and not just relying on the idea that it's been cut and pasted into this list. Some citations in here would also be useful, to establish a particular hardware device's notability in content-control. I tried to eliminate ones that were obvious to me. I need some help though, in any direction (re-adding or removal).Retran (talk) 09:22, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Why is a hardware section even included on a "software" list page? (araffals 16:28, 22 July 2010 (UTC)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Araffals (talk • contribs)

removal of gateway/firewall/nat software that is not notable for the purpose of content-contol

I am removing hardware and software titles that have been placed in here without having notability as to their content-control features. If you are adding a new one, you should probably cite the reason why its being listed HERE (other than it being promoted as such). If you cite it, it will be easier for me to understand the rationale.Retran (talk) 19:07, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip, Retran. Tried to cite the most recent addition correctly with the product that directly fits into content control, but new to this so I am not sure if there is some additional citing that is needed. Appreciate your comments. LindseyEKerr (talk) 11:50, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi and thanks for contributing. What entry did you add in?, and what was the citation you wanted to use? Maybe you had trouble so you can paste the links in here and let me have a look? Retran (talk) 21:22, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Hello Retran, this article earlier listed SafeSquid, but was removed, most probably because it was tagged with notability concerns. The tag was later removed, after a number of references were added to the page. So I am adding SafeSquid to 'Windows applications' and 'Other'. Sachinpurohit (talk) 11:28, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

What a horribly written/arranged article

I do not know anything about Wikipedia formatting, therefore I'm not of much help, but I just wanted to point out the obvious and say that this article needs better info and structure. Whoever can do it, please do so as soon as possible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DJ FireWire (talk • contribs) 04:25, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

interesting comment but this article's purpose seems to be just to list the notable content-control software titles. The article about content-control is separate. There's not really much else to be done with a list that is obvious to me. Does anyone know of best-of examples for this kind of list which differ from this? Retran (talk) 13:03, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured lists is probably where you want to start if you want examples of what lists should look like to become the list equivalent of Featured Articles. Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 16:39, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I have replaced the content of another page with a redirect to this comparison

Dear Yaakovaryeh:

Thank you for creating List of parental control software. I know you meant well in creating it. However, Comparison of content-control software and providers existed first. I have replaced the former with a redirect to the latter.

Next time, before you create a page about a topic, please search to make sure that there doesn't already exist another page about the same topic.

Yes, I admit that Comparison of content-control software and providers needs lots of work. But my philosophy is: If it needs fixing, fix it. Don't just create a duplicate. The creation of duplicate pages can lead to more problems down the road.

I have put a {{talkback}} template on your talk page to point you here.

All the best, —Unforgettableid (talk) 07:15, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

I believe I was aware of the page (and in fact may have edited it). However, that article is a more general article comparing a broader category of all content control software in general, while this focuses specifically on Parental control software, which is a specific type of content control software. Yaakovaryeh (talk) 08:19, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

It seems to me that the main difference is that parental control software tends to allow setting time restrictions, whereas other content control software doesn't. Am I correct? And if so, perhaps you could simply add a column to the comparison page. You could call the column "Allows setting time restrictions", and you could fill each entry in with "yes", "no", or (if you couldn't determine the answer from your research), "unknown". Does this seem like a reasonable idea? Cheers, —Unforgettableid (talk) 02:03, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Article name?

The name of this article is "Comparison of content-control software and providers", but I don't see much comparison. The lead of the article says "This is a list of content-control software and services." I suggest renaming (moving) the article to "List of content-control software". However, there is already another article with that name that redirects here, so this would be more of a replacement or swap. --Jeff Ogden (W163) (talk) 15:49, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

For Your Eyes Only

After a certain amount of gain with the attention of such service providers giving direct internet access, it is a willful call to behold the truth behind any full given time zones that defy business. As well you know, the software is computer controlled as so much the factory settings. This is because of such download ability found on modern internet computers. The race for video cards and spoofing through the onboard video graphic array can be useful to the ratio a person can do to create useful coincidence and make an impact on the business world. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:301:7751:160:20BA:1749:B66:5FC6 (talk) 14:13, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Some proposed changes

I would like to suggest the inclusion of uKnowKids in the Programs and Services section of this article. uKnowKids has provided parental control and parental monitoring since 2009, and is a notable leader in the parental control and parental monitoring markets

| uKnowKids || Client + Cloud Service||Windows, Mac OS, IOS, and Android||Parental intelligence and parental monitoring for iOS mobile devices, Android devices, and social media |No |No |$10/mo or $100/yr or $180/lifetime

I would also like to suggest the inclusion of uKnow.com in the Providers section of this article. uKnow.com is the parent company of uKnowKids and has powered numerous parental control and monitoring services including uKnowKids, FamilySense by XFINITY , and KidSafe.

• uKnow.com

COI notice: Please note that this proposed change is being suggested by an executive at uKnow.com and uKnowKids. Thank you in advance for your thoughtful consideration. Swoda (talk) 20:12, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi Swoda, and thank you for your suggestions. Many list articles on Wikipedia have the implicit requirement that any listed item must have a standalone article on Wikipedia. Since that is true for every single software currently listed on this page, I believe that the implicit requirement does apply as a precedent for this particular page. Therefore, uKnowKids needs to have its own article—and pass editor scrutiny for the topic's notability—before it can be listed here. Altamel (talk) 04:54, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

References

K9 Is No Longer Supported

Although the website still exists, and you can still sign up and download the software, K9 is dead. Key parts of the website no longer exist, which you'll find if you actually browse through it, but the biggest problem is that the database is not only no longer updated - it no longer exists. I know this is true because I downloaded and installed the software, and that is when I found out there is no database. It doesn't do anything without that! I don't have my password with me so I can't log on. I'm ReveurGAM.2600:1702:1610:5620:15E7:3CAE:6977:68DB (talk) 18:32, 6 April 2018 (UTC)ReveurGAM (talk) 00:31, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Please see my notes on the K9 page. This product is dead and should probably be removed from the table as the cloud databases don't exist.ReveurGAM (talk) 00:31, 18 August 2018 (UTC)