Talk:Tagged (website)

Suspicious of Identity Theft

This web service perpetrated one of my relative's email account and that propagated through my family. One of my aunt was asked for the last four digits to her social security number. No social networking services will ever ask you personal information to that degree. Even if you're buying something on ebay they don't ask you that information. I would suggest everyone who's given more information then they should go and put on a credit alert with their banks. 65.248.93.201 (talk)pobetiger —Preceding undated comment added 16:08, 8 June 2009 (UTC).

Notes

It's not a good idea to include links to documented Phishing sites. I'm not sure how to write the article without providing links, but linking to the site probably violates some WP policies... 65.102.184.165 (talk) 05:44, 25 July 2008 (UTC) --

I just added a "Controversy" section to document problems with Tagged.com's information security process. I realize I've failed to add any formal documentation. I'd appreciate it if someone else would find some of the links I mentioned and add references to them. I have a screen-capture of the registration process to post in support of the assertions I've made, but I want to redact personal information before I post it. Wolfrick 05:01, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Tagged.com is clearly editing this page to remove criticism. it would be nice if this page could be protected. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 32.97.110.142 (talk) 22:13, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I had a bad experience with Tagged.com, too. They sent me an "invitation" supposedly from a friend, but this friend (who really exists), never sent me an invitation. He got a similar email from a friend and made the mistake to reveal his email password. What happened next, Tagged spied out his mail box and got my email address, as all the other email addresses of my friend's contact list. Everyone in the contact list got "invitations" without my friend's authorization, even without him knowing. During the "registration process" supposedly in order for me to read the message that my friend wrote me (he didn't write a message), Tagged wanted to make me type in my password from my hotmail account, which I, of course, didn't do. I just want to warn other people not to put theirselfes into danger and reveal their passwords to this phishing website. This is password phishing and nothing else. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wilddumpling (talk • contribs) 04:34, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

NOTE: The article reads as though it was written by a PR firm paid by tagged.com. I would question its objectivity. - unsigned, January 15, 2007. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.210.91.81 (talk) 23:10, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Just a note when you search for "tagged" it redirects you to the "tag" page. There is no mention of tagged.com on the "tag" page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.138.164.195 (talk) 23:54, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Here are a few links explaining the way Tagged.com works. If not considered a social networking site, the site can be considered a phishing site, as it asks future users to submit both their personal login and password of several webmail services to Tagged.com. When you read their Terms of Service it becomes clear that this is far from innocent. Read for yourself:

http://www.symantec.com/enterprise/security_response/weblog/2007/04/spam_meets_web_20.html http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Security/Harvesting-Teenagers/ http://www.authenticationworld.com/blog/2007/04/harvesting_teenager_ids_and_ph.html

Scary! Even scarier, after accessing the mailbox of a new user of their "services", they send out mail to the owners of ALL addresses found in that mailbox. The mail contains a so called 'webbug' (tagged image). When the recipient of such an invitation opens the message and has the image displayed, Tagged will have a confirmation of the validity of that new address as well. WITHOUT the owner of that email address confirming to agree to have his email address included in that database. The whole way the site works makes one doubt if clicking the 'unsubscribe' link at the bottom of the invitation mail is worth clicking. It may be better to feed the network address block of their mailserver to ones spamfilter... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.129.202.130 (talk) 16:19, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I've had bad experiences with this site too, but to the point; everything negative has been repeatedly removed from this page, even when well sourced. Clearly the company doesn't want any bad publicity. The only way to keep this article balanced is to lock it. I would ask a mod to do it, if I had any idea how.Ssyme (talk) 13:23, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the company would give an ounce of care what anybody thinks on Wikipedia because there is no such things as bad publicity. The 30,000,000+ users can speak for themselves, so if you want to make a bolder statement, you are better off just avoiding the site that gets you so angry. Like I said, you're just fueling publicity. I keep deleting what you write because it is incorrect. I CAN tell you that you have to select your friends before an email is sent to them. So you are wrong about that. I also can tell you that Facebook and Myspace (as well as many MANY others) do the same thing with emailing lists so it seems to be commonplace among social networks now. Yeah, I agree that it sucks. But it is the way it is. Build your own social network if you want one that doesn't invade your privacy. Last I checked Rupert Murdoch was the king of invasion. Not these guys. Also, the articles you posted to back up your phishing lies?stories?ideas? are from bloggers' websites. They are not backed up by fact or even people who know what it means to run a social networking business. They are not from credible publications. Opinions are open to discussion- that is what makes America great. But take some initiative and really research the issue before you post things that are simply untrue.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Reddaisychild (talk • contribs) 23:07, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Symantec is a reputable organization and highly respected for their research into adware, viruses, phishing, and spyware. What they say about this subject matter carries significant weight. --Thomasdelbert (talk) 23:49, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

If the company doesn't care, why do they keep editing it? if you run a whois in the IPs making changes they're all up in the bay area, and some are even associated with Jumpstart, tagged.com's parent company. I wouldn't be suprised if Reddaisychild was one of the CEOs themselves. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.112.19.93 (talk) 04:35, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I can go on record and say that I am certainly NOT working for Tagged, nor have I ever worked for them in the past. There are a lot of things on Wikipedia that are simply untrue. I find it unfortunate that someone would continue to write things that are of this false nature despite Wikipedia giving the general public the privilege of doing so. I will respect that and, if phishing and spamming are in fact the goals of Tagged, I will be the first to change my opinion. I have yet to see proof of this however. I will continue to show another point of view not because I am trying to protect anybody, but rather because accusing a company of stealing information is a rather large accusation to make publicly when information given on this social network seems to have been given at the full consent of the user. My best advice to someone who does not agree with the way this social network is run, is to simply not use it. All social networks demand a certain amount of exercised caution on behalf of the user, be it Myspace, Facebook, Friendster, etc. But to make false accusations about a person's identity, involvement, or action is in no way my goal. Nor should it be yours. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Reddaisychild (talk • contribs) 23:29, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Hiya folks. Just a reminder to please see the WP:NPOV policy and keep it in mind before editing. Also, keep the conversation cool and no accusing others of being corporate shills. Thanks. :) ~Kylu (u|t) 05:18, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the pleasant reminder. Now, as an individual who has been victimized by the people or criminal organization behind tagged.com, AND a financial contributor to the Wikipedia Foundation (as of Dec 31, 2008), I will be writing to the Foundation to demand that a re-edited version of this article be fair and balanced (right down to the word/character counts) outlining that it is common knowledge that tagged.com offers no way out of their SPAM system, despite any claims to the contrary. My letter to Sue Gardner, at the Wikimedia Foundation, will outline my feeling that if Wikipedia feels obligated to facilitate fraud, then they will be doing so without one penny of contributions from me, ever, in the future. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brian Stegner (talk • contribs) 07:05, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Have to agree with the majority of the comments and conclude that Tagged.com must be spending some effort in removing anything from Wikipedia they don't like. I made a very simple change, changing a simple line like "since ... Tagged has been featured on several sites [1],[2],[3]" (containing only links to positive reviews) adding just one more reference: a number [4] linking to the article on the Symantec Security. Even that change, the most subtle way to show there are two sites of this medal, was removed (although, as was my intention, it stayed there much longer than the less subtle criticisms made by others). That can only be seen as part of an ongoing attempt to avoid any criticism to this site to come to the surface.

For any article on Wikipedia to maintain credibility, it cannot be that any **documented** critic is removed constantly. Thus I agree this article better be kept locked. So whatever your motives, Reddaisychild, it is legitimate to be positive about tagged.com and to defend them, but it can not be seen as legitimate to continuously remove any critical notes on this topic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.27.212.181 (talk) 17:27, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

'hmmmmmm....IMPRESSIVE NUMBERS BEING REPORTED. Question folks: IS IT POSSIBLE THAT THE # OF USERS BEING REPORTED BY TAGGED MAY BE LARGELY COMPRISED OF UNKNOWING/UNAUTHORIZED/UNWANTED 'SIGNUPS' (x EVERYONE IN YOUR ADDRESS BOOK ~ x EVERYONE IN THE ADDRESS BOOKS OF EVERY EMAIL ADDY PILPHERED FROM YOU (ME!!!) AND SO ON, AND SO ON. ADDS UP PRETTY FAST. THEIR NUMBERS ARE LIKELY ACCURATE. HOW CAN WE SHUT THESE PUNKS DOWN PEOPLE??????? 75.15.218.139 (talk) 11:01, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

SPAM

After a friend sent me an invite to 'Tagged' and I singed up, I began recieving 40-50 spam emails every day. Very few person know about the email address I used and it never received spam before. I know for a fact it was Tagged doing it because I had used a fake name to sign up and the Spam emails used the fake name in the subject. What did I do? I simply redirected my email to all the contact addresses listed for tagged and stopped using it. I considered signing THEM up to some spam....but then I'm not a criminal like them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.194.145.168 (talk) 23:34, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Is there any sign that authorities are investigating tagged.com? Because it's obviously a criminal organisation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Omargard123 (talk • contribs) 17:23, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I was sent an E-Mail this morning, from a Friend, regarding a Friend Request to Tagged.com. I Trust the Friend so I Opened it. I began Registration. When I got to where my Cell Phone Number was Required, I Cancelled. Shortly, within 10 minutes, thereafter, I began receiving letters from folks in my Address Book who had received Friend Requests from ME! They, Tagged.com, had Invaded my Address Book. They will also Invade Yer Address Book if ye get this Mail! Strongly Suggest Ye DELETE and BLOCK! Report as SPAM! A PHISHING SCAM! Remember, I had not even Finished Registration!Kingnormie (talk) 21:35, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Tagged have done the same to me regarding friend's requests that did not actually come from my friends and they spam me regularly. I found this page when trying to get to the bottom of it and was astonished at the main page content. It's sailing close to being an advert and I'd wager it's not neutral given the negative, albeit word-of-mouth, concensus on this site amongst everyone I know who has had contact with it. Please, someone, find something to 'balance' this with because I'm sure it's out there, and make sure it stays.

I received an invitation to "Tagged" from a friend. I did some looking online to see what it was, then emailed him to ask if he'd sent me an "invitation". He saidno. He said that Tagged invaded his email address book and sent out invitations to everyone in it. This is viral propagation. Tagged should be blocked from the internet immediately. 72.171.0.148 (talk) 00:55, 20 January 2009 (UTC)nofluer 18:55 19 January, 200972.171.0.148 (talk) 00:55, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Just look at this http://xianlandia.com/te-amo/2007/04/23/avoid_taggedcom_like_the_plague.htmlHaute Pie (talk) 19:41, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

More Spam

Seriously... Tagged.com does nothing but send spam to people in the vain hope of becoming Facebook. Azoreg (talk) 21:35, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Rubbish

I think this is the worst site i have ever seen —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.105.159.239 (talk) 15:16, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Someone who amounted to a friend of a friend invited me to join. I find it's basically a dating site and little else and since I'm married it's NOT for me.Alloco1 (talk) 22:01, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Getting the spam to stop

Please report the spam emails to the following addresses:

support@tagged.com, abuse@gblx.net, noc@tagged.com, abuse@unitedlayer.com

Getting the site offline is the only way spam gets stopped and these people need to be made aware of the amount of spam these people send.

An Internet First

This site may go down in history as the first cyber venereal disease. 24.8.59.22 (talk) 19:06, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Tagged will not last. Once it's clear what it's about, no respectable company will want anything to do with it. 134.10.113.105 (talk) 22:36, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Some thoughts on recent revisions

1) I think that it's important that there be reference to the site's questionable business practices in the lead paragraph. They are one of the most notable things about the site and will be of importance to those looking at this article.

2) ISTM that the previous editor was being disingenuous in labelling edits with innocuous phrases like "logical reordering of sentences" when in fact he was toning down the criticism significantly.

3) Does anyone understand the reference given in support of the idea that the practice of demanding the user's email password is common among social networking sites? It leads to a bunch of flow charts and I don't understand what they're saying. I notice, though, that only Tagged and one other site are labelled as "viral". Can anyone explain? Brettalan (talk) 17:44, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Just revert. Most of the accounts removing or downplaying this information have edited nothing but this article and are obviously agents of this sleazebag company. Tyuia (talk) 03:05, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

1) Absolutely – no doubt.

2) I agree, and have warned the IP accordingly (User_talk:76.204.193.121).

3) Hmmm... I couldn't make much sense of that source, though it seems to be designed to promote KISSmetrics. I see no evidence it would be a reliable source. Nevertheless, it's probably true that social networking sites commonly request users' email passwords: I remember Facebook requiring mine when I joined. At present the article doesn't imply that this behaviour is unusual, so I don't think there's a problem. It's the unsolicitied mass emailing that's been controversial, not the asking of the password per se.

Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 07:51, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe facebook requires your email password but offers the option to find friends that way. Same goes for twitter. I choose not to provide it for either. Ucanlookitup (talk) 16:46, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok, maybe it's changed since I joined around September 07. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 14:13, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Possible Lock?

It seems obvious to me that this is a very closely-watched article by some people who want to keep out almost all criticism of this website (repeated undos and revisions taking out sources and perfectly acceptable material). These repeated edits seem to violate the NPOV that wikipedia is supposed to have. Should this article be locked to avoid these repeated, biased edits? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.78.131.42 (talk) 22:13, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Tagged.com employee editing this article

If you look up 64.125.137.10 at ARIN.NET you'll see that IP is among a range allocated to Tagged, Inc. That account today erased all criticism from the lead and renamed the controversy section to something that sounded innocuous. DreamGuy (talk) 22:15, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm trying to revert the article as fast as possible but these guys are persistent. I think a lock is in order. ApostrophePolice (talk) 22:24, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

The article has been semi-protected. I hope that any editors who may be affiliated with the company will join the Talk page and explain whatever concerns they may have. EdJohnston (talk) 23:08, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

More bad press

tagged.com email "scam"

Added as reference. Tyuia (talk) 23:44, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

70 million registered users?

I find that claim, sourced only to the company website, highly dubious. For comparison, Facebook has around 200 million. Given the company's history of deception and their commercial interest in appearing popular, there's no way their site is a reliable source, so I'm removing the claim. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 14:13, 12 June 2009 (UTC)