Talk:Ask.com

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Ask.com. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Ask.com at the Reference desk.

smiley central

i think there should be something about smiley central, program with a lot of spyware inside. i cannot write it because i don't speak english very good :) --Running 01:39, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I very much agree with this. -Lciaccio (talk) 23:30, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do not agree, smiley central is not owned by Ask.com, but by IAC, who ownes Ask.com. --Samwb123 (talk) 06:28, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jeeves

Why did they get rid of Jeeves? I really don't see what's the point of getting rid of him. It's like the Google logo losing it's colours. bullshit

Features of the search engine

Hi! I think there should be some mentioning about the features that ask.com has compared to e.g. Google, as these are the only reason why ask is number 3 or 4 in search engines (after Google, Yahoo and possibly MSN).These features are things like narrow/expand your search, the inclusion of Wikipedia in results, …20:55, 6 June 2006 172.158.181.247

They killed Jeeves!

Oh why is the world so cruel? They say hes on vacation or retired, but I know better! We knew you well, Jeeves! 199.224.81.132 02:42, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually "they" didn't kill Jeeves, but the algorithm did. JesseRafe 18:07, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adding Good Resource Links

What should the criteria be for a good resource link? I added a link for advertisers to research ask as an advertising partner. Thoughts? 13:38, 24 April 2006 67.177.15.206

Jeeves' retirement

I edited the jeeves' retirement section based on reviewing the website, which said nothing about a competition. also, there were several items listed, and nowhere did it say that the winner was world cruise Mattjblythe 00:07, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ask forgot to renew the jeeves retirement site, and it was registered and turned into a porn site 72.10.215.230 (talk) 21:12, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Redirect" to information-revolution.org

The current article claims: "... users typing "google" into the ask.com search engine would be redirected to the information-revolution.org site. [4]"

The quoted source says: "Doing a search on Ask - and only Ask - for "google" returns the above site as the first result."

Returning a search result is not the same thing as a redirect and calling it so is misleading here. For example, www.guugle.org redirects to www.google.com, but Ask.com never redirected to information-revolution.org in response to a query.

Disclosure: I do work for Ask.com in the US, and so although my job is completely unrelated to this campaign in the UK, I do not want to edit the article myself. Can the author of that paragraph correct it? 206.80.1.253 19:56, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not just in London : [1] --68.161.143.45 02:51, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Any comment from those inside the company??? There are new billboards in London which don't reference information-revolution but just have a link to Ask.Com. --PaulWicks 08:29, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Amen 74.92.169.169 (talk) 17:47, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New logo? Secondary logo?

I recently went to one of Ask Jeeves' astroturfing websites, www.information-revolution.org[www.information-revolution.org], and the Ask Jeeves logo has changed slightly. Now there's the words "The Other Search Engine" underneath it. Should this be included in the article, or should we just show the new logo in the section about the Jeeves' astroturfing?SteveSims 06:15, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Algorithm

I'm seeing lots of advertising about how the algorithm killed Jeeves. The article probably should address this some how. Mathiastck 19:57, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, apparently their technology has been changing recently, but there aren't any details I know of. 21:20, 19 May 2007 217.42.242.45

Who wrote the Apostle’s Creed? recently, but there aren’t any — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:100A:B1C0:B7C4:ED2C:14FA:AA99:DB4C (talk) 22:06, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Million pound question

A few years ago, maybe about 5, they did an advertising campaign where if somebody asked jeeves a specific question, they win £1,000,000. Does anybody remember what this was? Or prefrably, what the question to be asked was?16:29, 7 July 2007 User:Andysjones

I think It had something to do with a cryptid? maybe.. but it would've been cool if it was -can I have my $1,000,000 now?- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.188.105.35 (talk) 13:54, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On the first five pages of google results on "ask jeeves million pound question" i can't find the question or any article about the price money actually being paid. It's an interesting trivia that should be mentioned in this WP article if anyone can find a proper reference on what the question was and who won the money. PizzaMan (♨♨) 12:04, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

AskEraser

we should write an article about this recent press release. looks like its going to be big.[2] 21:42, 21 July 2007 Simaloko

Fair use rationale for Image:AskLogoNew07.PNG

Image:AskLogoNew07.PNG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 13:00, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kanisa

This article links to "Kanisa" a company who bought Ask.com's search technology. The linked Wikipedia article redirects to "church", which I doubt is the proper destination. As it stands now, there is no article for Kanisa in any context, be it church-related or for the software distributor, which is briefly mentioned elsewhere in an article for software firms. Seeing as this is Wikipedia, you could request on a talk page such as that for Self service software vendors for the creation of a Kanisa article. It never hurts to write an article of some length about the company, provided it meets Wikipedia's guidelines. -Alan 05:26, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Ask Jeeves book

Does anyone else remember a so-called "book of answers" that Ask Jeeves published a few years back in paperback? It was meant to be an informative collection of "intriguing" questions and their answers as mundane as "What is that new car smell?" (as advertised on the back cover). It's possible they were the more frequent questions from the site. It was called, "Just curious, Jeeves."

Also, this article fails to clarify the fact that the original web address was Askjeeves.com. It gives the impression it was never any address besides Ask.com and that solely the company name existed as Ask Jeeves. If anyone shares my nostalgia (though it is still available on Amazon.com) would you deem it worth adding to the article? And, forgive me for asking, but why is this talk page riddled with seemingly irrelevant questions. What does MC Hammer have to do with this article?

Thanks, Alan 24.184.184.177 (talk) 04:23, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

COI / Reads like an ad for the company

A search on WikiScanner reveals edits from the company's domain, and most of the article reads like promotional material for the company. This is especially notable for a company whose business practices are widely questioned. I have reverted a part of the page that was critical, adding a reference. However, it appears as if much work remains to make this POV-neutral. -Lciaccio (talk) 23:29, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:JEEVES2.JPG

Image:JEEVES2.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 22:18, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:JEEVES3.JPG

Image:JEEVES3.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 22:20, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:JEEVES5.JPG

Image:JEEVES5.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 22:21, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion on moving forward.....

[3] Any ideas? SDSandecki (talk) 01:19, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Two things:

The AP story is slightly incorrect, as Ask indicates it won't be as women-specific as the AP reports.
What are you asking? How to make note of this in the article? Likely mention it in the lead, and then add it to the history section.

--ZimZalaBim ^talk 02:02, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was looking for some thoughts on it before making any edits, I'm glad you pointed out that article. SDSandecki (talk) 02:40, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What web site can I go to find out stuff about the city of Floence Ms? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.65.169.160 (talk) 23:54, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ask.com to Acquire Lexico, Owner of Dictionary.com, Thesaurus.com, and Reference.com 92.228.228.88 (talk) 23:01, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is that the butler from the old Richie Rich comics?

Is that the butler from the old Richie Rich comics? Jojo87 (talk) 02:46, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Curtis

I've just redirected Andy Curtis here in response to a prod. Please merge whatever you deem useful from the history of the article.- Mgm|^(talk) 11:28, 18 November 2008 (UTC) Andy Curtis isn't mentioned once in the (current) ask.com article. Who is he, why is he notable and how is he related to ask.com? PizzaMan (♨♨) 12:07, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Net Effect Acquisition of Ask Jeeves

I have a reference that says that Net Effect acquired Ask Jeeves in 1999 [4] Can someone clarify?--Nowa (talk) 15:19, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jeeves is back?

According to the new picture uploaded to the gallery, Jeeves has returned. But when I visited the UK Ask.com, there appears to be no evidence of this. So what is it? Andy120290 (talk) 17:36, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is back now, the difference is that Jeeves is in 3D rendering, thereby allowing more detail.--Marianian (talk) 10:36, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jeeves is not really back. However, if you type in askjeeves.com instead of ask.com, his picture will appear as a sort of easter egg. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.105.7.242 (talk) 00:43, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How many of you people work for this crew ?

"The toolbar is sometimes bundled with other software, in which the user has a choice on whether to install it or not. The toolbar also gives the user the option to change his/her homepage to Ask.com, leading some people into thinking the toolbar is malware. The Ask toolbar can easily be uninstalled from Firefox/Internet Explorer[16]." LOL - weasel words extraordinaire. I have never asked for it on my machine, assented to it or would ever do so. It took a few minutes to get rid of the toolbar but ages to get rid of the redirect. This entry implies that poor, misguided little users can not spot malware when it bites them. See: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/671 for a few other opinions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.173.161.79 (talk) 10:51, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Couldn't agree more, nobody actually wants this crap on their machine, which is why they have to be sneaky about it. Scum. 90.209.75.69 (talk) 15:48, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

anonymous comments

Hi - the two "references" to newsgroups aren't suitable because they're by anonymous, largely uninformed users citing anecdotal information. Someone who was looking at that for a bug report would not find them useful unless they aligned with some comments by more well-known/knowledgeable sources. Tedickey (talk) 21:30, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Uninstalling Ask.com

A question for samwb123, I quote from the source http://kb.mozillazine.org/Problematic_extensions (emphasis is mine)

Disable or uninstall in Firefox via "Tools -> Add-ons -> Extensions". May need to uninstall via Windows Control Panel (see Uninstalling toolbars). Delete the file "AskSearch.js" (if found) after uninstalling. May also need to reset preferences related to Ask.com (such as keyword.URL) via about:config.

How can you claim this does not support that the file AskSearch.js may remain even after uninstalling the usual ways? 83.250.229.5 (talk) 15:12, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AskSearch.js is a search engine for Firefox, just like you have Yahoo, Google, Wikipedia, Ask, Bing, or another search engine by your address bar. And the article already says that Ask.com remains the default search engine until the setting is changed. Samwb123^T-C-@ 21:00, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but shouldn't an uninstall remove all files that were installed, if it works correctly? If the AskSearch.js remains, as the source says it does, see the part of the quote with emphasis, then the uninstall is a bit trickier than just through control panel/addon-menu. Even after changing default search engine, the file remains. 83.250.229.5 (talk) 16:30, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's because you have to uninstall the search engine (the 'Remove' button in preferences or options) and restart the browser, not just change it, to remove the file. Samwb123^T-C-@ 22:04, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mozillazine is very clear on that the file may still be there even after uninstalling the toolbar. Do you you mean that you have to uninstall another program/addon as well? 83.250.229.5 (talk) 03:06, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What I mean is, AskSearch.js is unrelated to the Ask toolbar. Instead, it is the file used for the search bar beside (not under) the address bar (the address bar is where you type in addresses like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foobar). This is why AskSearch.js still remains after you uninstall the toolbar. You have to click 'remove' in 'Change search defaults' in Internet Explorer and Tools > Preferences or Options > Searching tab in Firefox to remove AskSearch.js. Samwb123^T-C-@ 03:35, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If the file came with the toolbar when it was installed, then it is not unrelated to the toolbar. Anyway, it should be clarified somehow in the article. 83.250.229.5 (talk) 04:38, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Trivia

I've tried this several times, so I can attest to it, but I can't find a website that is a reliable reference. But, there's a bit of trivia about ask.com. If you've never visited askjeeves.com before, there's a cookie that makes Jeeves appear. If clear cookies and visit "ask.com", Jeeves will not appear. However, typing "askjeeves.com" in the URL bar brings him back. I don't know if it's important at all, but it's worth noting. Ianonavy (talk) 05:40, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The toolbar section of this article is HIGHLY inaccurate. Since I am a new user of wikipedia, I don't want to edit it myself and mess it up, but I would like to suggest that it be edited. The toolbar actually contains adware, which is the REASON it is incompatible with Kaspersky. The article also states that it does not install without the user's consent. That is a downright lie. I have seen many cases where it had sneaked on to user's computers. This website is form the makers of MyWebSearch, a well known virus. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bryzal (talk • contribs) 15:32, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Same comment made a million times on this talk page and to the article. The Ask Toolbar is NOT the MyWay Searchbar. See that page for details. Oh, and if you have a reference to support your claim, other than the website that confuses the Ask Toolbar with the MyWay Searchbar, I will consider adding your claim into the article. Samwb123^{T (R)-C-E} 21:13, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's place isn't to be biased. Yes, the Ask.com toolbar is occasionally put into installers on an opt-out basis. That doesn't mean that it doesn't install without the user's consent. Sorry Bing, I know you're jealous of Jeeves but life's tough sometimes....

70.27.86.216 (talk) 00:21, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

editing the toolbar section

I plan to edit the toolbar section, to make it more accurate. I have no citations, but the current article also has no citations and is blantantly incorrect to everyone on the talk page. Sue me. Veggieburgerfish (talk) 16:06, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

n.b. for me every search engine is near impossible to use at the moment, because of adware installed by ask. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Veggieburgerfish (talk • contribs) 16:20, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You must provide a reliable, verifiable source supporting your claims. Also, please do not confuse the Ask Toolbar with the MyWay Searchbar (MyWebSearch), as these are very different but sometimes get mixed up. And there are sources in the article. Samwb123^{T (R)-C-E} 22:35, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't the place for users to complain about products because they don't work properly for them. This a place for factual information. 70.27.86.216 (talk) 00:23, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

references vs original research

Samwb, if you use a reference, the reference must say explicitly what you are quoting or paraphrasing. You can not draw a conclusion and then reference it, because then you claim that your referenced source says that. If a website says explicitly that a file is not spyware, please feel free to write so, and reference it. But if a website has a policy to only put up files which are tested for spyware, and a file is on that website, then it does not say EXPLICITLY that the file is not spyware. We can draw the conclusion, but then it is OUR CONCLUSION, which is the same as Original Research.

Keep the claim if you wish, there is nothing wrong with the logic behind it, but at least remove the reference, because the reference is erroneous, since it does not say explicitly what you claim. (There is still the question of what constitutes spyware though, the claim could be made that all search engines monitor our websearches, and download.com and other file providers can not have full knowledge of how this information is stored or used). 213.66.250.245 (talk) 07:21, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your conclusion that that would be original research. However, if you take a look at this page, it explicitly says 'Tested spyware free'. And if you mouse-over the little 'i' next to that claim, it has a little more explicit information. I will change the reference to make it more like this. Samwb123^{T (R)-C-E} 17:16, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can't Remove, common problem, -- ask.com seen as Malware / Trojan

As your article mildly suggested, normal means at removal fail. I tried both the Control Panel uninstall (that program appeared to work, but did nothing) and to disable it in Firefox's add-ons (that program also appeared to work, but did nothing). This program obviously has some of the self-protection features of the worst viruses!

On my WinXP computer, ask.com rode in as a Trojan bundled with some freeware that I installed from a reputable download site (either c-net or Snapfiles). I have noticed this attempt by ask.com before, but disabled it at installation. I NEVER wanted it to begin with! Acting as a VIRUS, it then SPREAD from the unwanted toolbar on Firefox to an unwanted toolbar on MS Internet Explorer, which then proceeded to act like nagware or adware by adding insult to injury by asking me; why not change your default search engine to us?

I am FAR from alone in this, this M.O. seems to be S.O.P. If one googles: removal OR remove OR Uninstall tool-bar "ask.com" - then one finds many complaints that mirror my above comments, often in even stronger language! (About 166,000 results) Such as: "My PC is infected with ask.com malware on both Firefox and IE7" Frankly I was surprised when my anti-malware program Ad-Aware did NOT offer to remove it/them. (The above Help sites I've been to so far are long and worthless suggestions at trying my above "solutions." Seemingly what is needed is a malware removal tool.)

These self-protection "features" are UNACCEPTABLE! This viral spreading is UNACCEPTABLE! Even what your article mildly under-suggests is UNACCEPTABLE! ...in any reputable mainstream software. That it won't cleanly uninstall via standard methodology means at BEST that it's crapware. Will sombody please correct the article?

Thank You.
Doug Bashford--68.127.91.126 (talk) 16:04, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious malware - Unfortunately lamers can also write articles in Wikipedia

Despite I'm generally very careful with this sort of thing, today, as I was building a DVD with my antivirus unactivated, I unfortunately typed this address: http://www (dot) brynosaurus (dot) com/cachedir/ and I was redirected to this one: http://geti (dot) com/dvds. Before I could do anything, a software was installed into a new Ask.com folder of Program Files, with the name "Search-Results Toolbar" and an S-shaped logo, a plugin and a search engine installed in Firefox, a search engine in IE I never use, my home pages were moved to this geti site. I used the uninstaller and made a system restore. But it reinstalled the toolbar and all its settings and plugins. My Internet caches had been cleaned before the restoration, the Ask folder was deleted, but the software uninstaller may have a protection that re-installs it, as Avast antivirus does. Seems I got rid of this pest after another cleaning and system restore, but as I typed a search about this malware in Firefox 4 address bar, I was redirected to this "Search-Results" engine instead of Google: it has become the default search engine. So maybe I did not completely get rid of this malediction.

Wikipedia should not keep articles written by those lamers in order to promote their sh***--Francois C (talk) 17:45, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Current Practices of IAC/Ask Toolbars

http://www.benedelman.org/spyware/ask-toolbars Sitting somewhere between elightening and disturbing... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.128.71.224 (talk) 00:04, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Controversy" section

I'm making a few changes to the toolbar controversy section. First of all, one guy ranting it about it five years ago does not constitute a controversy. Second, "PC Decrapifier" is definitely not a reliable source for the claim made; on top of that, even that site says only 37% of people removed it, meaning most people feel it's just fine. Definitely undue weight. Finally, the page cited for the claim about Comodo detection comes up with a 404 error, so that whole statement is unsourced. Based on some of the talk comments above, it seems a few people are confusing this with another toolbar. Might be part of the same company, but not the same toolbar. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 12:59, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Changes made. Wow, there was a lot of unsourced stuff in there. Negative claims need multiple, reliable sources. Otherwise, let's stick to the facts, please. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 13:07, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The malware complaints against Ask.com and the Ask toolbar ARE TOTALLY WELL FOUNDED; it is NOT "just one guy ranting about it". Ask is crap that is being forced on users who are then stuck with it because of deliberate sabotage of normal removal methods.Magneticlifeform (talk) 01:24, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you certainly sound unbiased and unemotional about it. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 01:57, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

POV Detected. 181.50.211.135 (talk) 20:56, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's a (vast) majority point of view that ask.com software is annoying malware. If you disagree, please provide sources about how great it is.PizzaMan (♨♨) 12:13, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Toolbar Virus

I disagree with a position being taken by an editor who disagrees with using certain language to describe the ask.com toolbar virus/malware/adware. My goal here is only to make the article more accurate.

Though I admit I have personal experience of the java update including this virus without any opt out, there are many reliable sources that talk about it and among those already cited for the article is evidence supporting the minor change proposed.

I ask if others would weigh in or suggest another way to make this factual accuracy change with different language.

The fact I think should be included is that the opt out, if it existed at all, was not visible even for users who carefully check for such things, and therefore is notably different than other visible opt outs that computer professionals are already on the watch for. The ComputerWorld article records this claim when it quotes a professional saying the install appeared to be intended to be hidden even from "technically-astute users".

An editor suggested that a three leveled logical syllogism is necessary to move from claims made in the reliable sources to the change I was proposing. I would like to give that editor and others a chance to see which sourced claim I believe backs up my proposed change and judge whether this requires a complex chain of conclusions or flows directly from understanding what the source's sentence means:

language used in a reliable neutral source:

Bott found that the Ask.com toolbar was not immediately installed, but waited 10 minutes after Java finished to kick in. "I've never seen a legitimate program with an installer that behaves this way," said Bott, who speculated that the technique was an attempt to hide the toolbar's installation from technically-astute users. http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9236273/Oracle_will_continue_to_bundle_crapware_with_Java

proposed change to description of opt-out from:

Installer packages for partner companies have an option (opt-out) to install the Ask Toolbar and/or change the user's default browser home page to Ask.com.

to:

Installer packages for partner companies have a heavily disguised option (opt-out) to install the Ask Toolbar and/or change the user's default browser home page to Ask.com.

Agree, disagree? -75.80.16.96 (talk) 04:41, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing you've cited says it's a "virus", and nothing written by anyone who knows anything about computing would call it that, because it's not. A virus is a specific thing, not just whatever random crapware you happened to accidentally download. Unfortunately for this company, the kind of person who downloads toolbars and Zwinkies and all that other junk is also the kind of person who doesn't read user agreements and doesn't know the difference between adware, spyware, and viruses. But whether you understand that or not, this isn't the place to complain about it. This is an encyclopedia. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 14:55, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is it legitimate, per reliable sources? Apparently not. Is it malware? I think you're on solid ground saying that. But is it a virus? Not that I can see. "Malware", with a wikilink, is clear enough, isn't it? Red Slash 17:32, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

seemingly unrelated tech suppport inquiry collapsed

i installed a software before. in the past i simply inserted a CD and a dialog box automatically came up that told me what to do. this time i inserted the CD and nothing happens. what do i do next? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.58.72.108 (talk) 12:54, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is Wikipedia, not Ask.com. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 13:52, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

While it may behave like malware, it's clearly not a computer virus—while virus is a common misnomer for malware in general, the term specifically means software that propagates in a certain way. The current term for products like Undesired, Difficult To Remove Toolbar™ appears to be Potentially Unwanted Program (or PUP), meaning software you probably did not intend to install (but may have unwittingly opted in for) that performs a task it is plausible someone could want even though it is hard to imagine anyone would (like redirecting your Google searches to another search engine that accepts payment for ranking in search results).

I imagine the term PUP may have been coined so anti-malware products could talk about things they were removing without litigation hassles. And yes, it's getting increasingly hard to call malware "malware" on Wikipedia. / edg ☺ ☭ 17:52, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely a virus. I don't want it, I can;t use my PC properly, and can't get rid of it. How else would you call it??!?!?!?! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.221.112.234 (talk) 20:59, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

RFC

There is sufficient consensus to ascertain that the lead paragraph of this article should not include that Ask.com is a distributor of malware. Thank you, --ceradon (talk • edits) 05:54, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Should the lead paragraph include that IAC / Ask.com is a distributor of malware? Red Slash 03:38, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. It is well-sourced and well-known that Ask.com's toolbar is extremely difficult to uninstall and is installed surreptitiously on target computers. This is malware. This is not seriously contested by anyone, and is both well-sourced and has been part of the article for literally years. [5] It is arguable (hence we're arguing, I guess) whether or not this is notable enough to make the lead sentence or paragraph; I'd argue that since it's the way most people will probably encounter Ask.com, if at all (most people install Java at some point), it deserves primary mention. I'm interested in your thoughts. Red Slash 03:38, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No per WP:NOR: This would imply that Ask.com is completely malicious and has no good-faith offering, which no reliable source explicitly states. The current mention is enough. Esquivalience ^t 00:18, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No per WP:UNDUE. What is there right now[6] is enough. Darx9url (talk) 06:53, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
NO - I was invited here randomly by a bot. I was unable to find a source in the references that identified the Ask.com toolbar as malware. Instead it appears to be identified by at least two sources as a potentially unwanted program (PUP) and explicitly referred to in both cases as "not malware." Usage of the term appears to be WP:OR and WP:POV. Even if there were sources for this usage, any more prominent mention in the lead would be undue. I recommend replacing the term "malware" with "grayware" or "potentially unwanted program". Jojalozzo (talk) 23:47, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
NO - As Jojalozzo above experienced, I'm missing any source identifying the Ask.com software as malware. It is debatable whether they do or do not officially spread malware, but until this is objectivily proven, I don't think te article should point to IAC/Ask.com as a distributor of malware (especially in the lead paragraph). Mathijsvs (talk) 10:01, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No As has been pointed out by others, there are specific classifications of what constitutes malware, however there must be a general concensus among researchers and "security" software companies, as well as general feelings among regular Internet users that something is malware before something can be seriously considered to be malware. The plug-in / extention may be extremly annoying, and the difficulty to remove the annoying, advertising-crammed, rudely-operating software may even be designed to be such, however the software serves an actual legitimate puropse (however annoying) so I don't think most people consider it to be malware. Damotclese (talk) 15:20, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes The sources cited are sufficient to establish the validity of this claim. The breadth of criticism makes this a significant enough component of the toolbar to justify its inclusion in the lede. LavaBaron (talk) 04:59, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes for the reasons above. KieranTribe (talk) 11:19, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not exactly Microsoft (among others) consider older versions of the toolbar malware, although newer versions could still be considered PUP by others. Another source here. I think the form in the current version is fine. Per WP:LEAD, leads should summarize what the article says. Since the article has a whole section on the toolbar, I dont think its WP:UNDUE to make a small mention there. Ask is not a distributor of malware, but its toolbar has been criticized. I think the current version is fine. --– jfsamper ^{(talk•contrib•email)} 01:42, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

If sources exist, as some claim, to support identifying the Ask toolbar as malware, I'd agree to the use of the term in the article. Please provide citations. Jojalozzo (talk) 02:11, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It seems there are tons of sources after a quick google search but I think it should say something like "ask.com toolbar is criticized by some such as neowin.com etc for being malware." I don't think we have absolute evidence that it is malware but some sources say it "acts like malware".

http://www.neowin.net/news/microsoft-now-considers-the-ask-toolbar-as-malware Popish Plot (talk) 14:59, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I found a source from 2013 calling it "deceptive software" [7]. Recent stories about Microsoft explicitly call the older versions of the ask toolbar malware but fall short of saying the same thing about the current version [8] [9]. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:36, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think the truth is that a lot, maybe the majority, of free downloadable apps are malware. Why give it away for free unless it's sending back info or some sort of unwanted action. But unless a source says it for something we can't mention it in Wikipedia. And if a source says something is deceptive software, that is not the exact definition of malware so we can't paraphrase it into saying it is malware. Popish Plot (talk) 13:39, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Ask.com. 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/20090331204759/http://www.ask.com:80/nascar/2009-Shelby-427-race to http://www.ask.com/nascar/2009-Shelby-427-race#results

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

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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} 11:58, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ask.com. 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 {{dead link}} tag to http://about.ask.com/en/docs/about/webmasters.shtml
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070410132033/http://about.ask.com/docs/about/televisionads.shtml to http://about.ask.com/docs/about/televisionads.shtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 21:52, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Ask.com. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 22:25, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ask.com. 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/20110714154201/http://bbs.cid.cn.nascar.com/2009/news/headlines/cup/01/13/blabonte.hof.racing/index.html to http://bbs.cid.cn.nascar.com/2009/news/headlines/cup/01/13/blabonte.hof.racing/index.html

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) 06:40, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

InterActiveCorp logo.svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:23, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Missing text?

In this paragraph -- “To avoid a situation in which no answers were available from its own resources, the company outsourced to an unnamed third-party search provider the comprehensive web search matches that it had gathered itself.”, the last phrase seems to have a bit of text missing; specifically, “the company outsourced to an unnamed third-party search provider the comprehensive web search matches that it had gathered itself” is not predicated around “the.” I would make a correction myself, but I don't know the specific emphasis of this phrase. 65.35.50.174 (talk) 15:47, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]