Contents 1 Ban Kmesserly 2 Banned for a Differing Opinion? 3 NPOV 4 Non-NPOV Talk 5 ErrorGuard 6 Article needs updating 7 Need third party opinions :) 8 GAIN? 9 Spyware Removal 10 Rise of the dreaded undead!

[edit] Ban Kmesserly

Please ban Kmesserly from this article, she is the director of marketing for Claria...THE DIRECTOR OF FREAKIN' MARKETING FOR CLARIA....if there is anyone in this world that has a conflict of interest with this article, it'd be her. She has no business in this article, and probably will track down all of our IP addresses to sue us for "libel" if we say anything bad about her god-awful spyware company.(edit: this is faulty reasoning. "party x has different perceptions than me; therefor their information is suspect." All opinions must be represented on WIKIPEDIA.-dragonnas) As someone who works for tech support, I can attest to how much misery her company has caused me...I hope everyone involved with creating her god-awful products is forced to use a computer with the products they made installed for the rest of their lives.

---

[edit] Banned for a Differing Opinion?

---) Kmesserly seems to be the only person who will admit Claria Corporation has done anything in the year 2007. All the other "authors" are just talking about what this company did a year ago, or 5 years ago. Software written originally for windows 98. Who cares? I know practically nothing about this company's current information except the crap I ALREADY knew and almost everyone already knows. This article is not NPOV. Do I think the marketing director of the corporation should rewrite it? Probably not. But I also don't think the webmaster of IHATEGATOR.COM should rewrite it, because that person would definitely and irrefutably be trapped in the past. -Dragonnas *works for GM, not Claria* may14.2007 08:43:00

---+-+-)I made some edits. I changed the "2003" events to past tense so the article doesn't look like an outdated news archive. If we're going to have such a virulent and hateful article posted, we should also allow for a second point of view. I want to see some new stuff here- don't delete the old stuff, just find out what they are doing NOW (like not in 2003.) People hate marketers because they censor the negative point of view on their company- Don't market for your own beliefs and censor the positive. Make room for change and other viewpoints, even opinions you don't like or agree with. You want to write articles with just biased one point of view, go work for MSN. I can't stand to read that crap. -Dragonnas may14.2007 09:08:24

[edit] NPOV

This article is not NPOV

I find it hard to know how this article can ever be NPOV, though. Claria is infamously, best known in the Internet world as a spyware company. -x42bn6 08:20, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

It seems NPOV to me. It described what the company does. That this describtion inevitable will lead to a singular conclusion for any intelligent lifeform capable of a conscience, does not make the article non-neutral point of view. Remember, the article does not have to be neutral. Only the point of view has. You could put enoug weasel-word into the article and leave out facts so that some readers may be undecided about the company, but then the point of voice would not be neutral.--Per Abrahamsen 10:19, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

That's fine, but this article needs to be cleaned up. It's very disorganized. If anything, the criticism should all be consolidated and moved into a "criticism" section. --DDG 19:06, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

This is definitely not NPOV. Whenever any false info is corrected and the corrections don't fit in with the general Claria-bashing tone of the article, the correct info is removed (even by folks you'd think would be interested in the Wiki truth, rather than their own personal opinions, such as DDG). And for Wikipedia to present opinion submitted by folks such as Per Abrahamsen as fact is irresponsible: Mr Abrahamsen has never worked for Claria, so his claims re: knowing "what the company does" are false - his submissions are based on what he thinks the company does based on his limited observations of the end-user product(s)... opinion not fact. Thus the article is tainted - it does not exist to present factual info; it exists as a forum to perpetuate inaccurate though popular misinformation. --An anonymous but very knowledgable user 14:49, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Uh, I haven't submitted anything to the article. Look at the history. Shows how much your facts are worth, Mr. "Knowledgable User". Anyway, people who work for a company is in general considered too close to be neutral.--Per Abrahamsen 08:54, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Is there anything to report in Gator/Claria Corporation's history which can't be construed as inherent criticism? I had no idea they were even a legitimate company before reading this article; I'd always assumed some hacker in Eastern Europe was just using it to make a quick buck. Icewolf34 20:46, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

The only thing positive that I can think of with respect to this corporation is that they successfully showed the world what NOT to do. They increased the awareness factor of how poorly chosen software installs can be detrimental to privacy. While it remains uncertain if the younger crowd are directly influenced by their past actions, it most likely has made a significant difference in the explosion of privacy policy notices seen all over the web. Service providers everywhere have become more aware of privacy concerns.- Jim 08:40, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I am not affiliated with Claria in any way. I edited the document to correct what I perceived to be biased language. I don't consider Claria to be a "spyware" company at the present time. I consider the language as written to have been pejorative.

I know a thing or two about Claria, and can tell you that the article contains many inaccuracies. However, due to the POV of the contributors, there's very little point in offering mods... anything that doesn't comply with the mob's beliefs will simply be shouted down - an unfortunate byproduct of free contribution. KMesserley did, in fact, offer some truths, but no one would listen as she was (perhaps correctly) labeled a spinmeister. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.197.87.253 (talk) 00:57, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Non-NPOV Talk

Some idiots!

Gator -> Claria?

They won't get away!

They are so stupid!

Indeed I have to agree. They have such a horrible reputation as spyware demons that it won't matter what they change their company name to and what they do, they will remain known scumbags and go down in history as such. I remember what a headache their spyware was in the old days, and honestly hope that their company is sued into the ground for violation of human rights/privacy or anything along the lines of that... no matter what they're currently doing, a crime is a crime, even if it was in the past. And not surprisingly there are members of their company editing articles on wikipedia at their leisure. This is one of the reasons why wikipedia is often not recognized as a reputable source of information. 74.107.206.130 21:16, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ErrorGuard

I was about to merge ErrorGuard into this article, but I can't find hard evidence that this software is made by claria (and I'm not about to run out and install it). According to computer associates, this product is developed by a company called "Error Guard Inc." [1]. Can someone shed some light on this? --DDG 19:34, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Claria has no affiliation with ErrorGuard. Claria does own the domain eGuard.com (the company's name prior to becoming known as Gator), but eGuard and ErrorGuard are unrelated.

Actually, Claria was not once named eGuard. That name was considered and the domain acquired, but the company's first name was Gator.com. Kmesserly 00:10, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

That means nothing coming from the director of marketing of the company. Stop editing wikipedia with propaganda. Cyrus777 21:23, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Claria was known eGuard until it bought the Gator.com domain in 1999, at which point the company's name changed to Gator. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.197.87.253 (talk) 01:10, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Article needs updating

This article needs freshening due to significant changes in Claria's business model, exit from popup/adware business and the simple fact that the document's tense is the past as present (Claria said it plans to do X at the end of 2Q2006.)

Though I'm a flak @ Claria, I'm not a spin doctor, and I'll take a crack at some updates. Seems when I try to edit to change facts, the edits are ignored or deleted -- that seems a little odd to me.

At any rate, look for some updates from me. Kristine Kmesserly 00:16, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Do not edit articles about your own company. 72.139.119.165 16:52, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Of course I will edit it to correct factual inaccuracies and to update outdated information. I am upfront about who I am and what I am doing. Who are you and why are you so enraged by me fixing your inaccuracies such that you would simply ignore each and every edit and replace the whole article? Could we at least discuss them one by one? Kmesserly 23:28, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Restrict them to minor edits, then. See WP:AUTO. Do not promote Claria Corporation products here. 72.139.119.165 14:54, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, please, by all means, read WP:AUTO. Pay careful attention to the part where it clearly says that anyone is welcome to correct inaccuracies in an article about themselves as long as the changes are facts, not opinions. I'd put the FACT that the person who is CEO in the category about an inaccuracy that needs to be changed, wouldn't you? If not, why not? Kmesserly 21:10, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

No, you have it wrong. This article doesn't need a minor edit, it needs a writethru. It would not be a minor edit, for example, to move the whole section on "current" products to "former products" and introduce a new section on "current products." I did that edit first and zzzzzzzzip, revert. I am willing to have an impartial third party do it, but you are clearly upset for some reason and are not keeping a neutral point of view. Maybe you can look up the section on that :) Kmesserly 19:59, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Need third party opinions :)

Hi there. As you can see in the history of this document, I have made what I think are obvious changes to this article: removing outdated information that refers to products that are no longer offered as current products, not discussing current products that have been introduced over six months ago, correcting a minor inaccuracy about who started the company.

Someone else has reverted this article at least three times since then (if I can understand the histories correctly). I replaced his/her revisions with my own twice, hoping the other person would simply lose interest in defending inaccuracies.

Given that this has not happened, I need help.

1) Would someone be willing to rewrite this article based on new independent research. I can/will provide you with as much information as you'd like from me, or as little.

2) Absent #1, what's the best method of getting the article edited? It seems even minor edits are ignored and the article reverted wholesale. I am very willing to talk edit-by-edit and get consensus, but need to know how many people care enough about this to work with me and against ignorance or malice.

3) Any other advice?

Thanks in advance for your help.

Kmesserly 23:40, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

No, important historical products are should be included. I did not revert all edits, like the edits Piliwiki made. 72.139.119.165 14:56, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

OK; my edits did include a section on former products. Do you think the section on CURRENT products should be reverted? Or the fact that Denis Coleman was one of several "founders"? And who are you? What's your interest in this? Just curious -- want to be above board.

Any third party people out there who can help? :)

See above.

Kmesserly 19:56, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Also, one of my reverts was to an edit (not by you, by someone else) made that stated that Gator is infamous. That is true (in my opinion), but it is POV and for this reson cannot be included. 72.139.119.165 17:46, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Details about products no longer provided have every place here- this is an encyclopaedia article, not a news article. Most of what is written on this site is "historic" information, and not current. The Battle of Waterloo is no longer going on, but it does still have a page.

If you're not careful, you're going to get in trouble for editing a page about your own company so much. correcting inaccuracies is one thing, but rewriting is another. The fact that Gator had a reputation for being spyware is not up for debate (it is citable and referenceable). Whether or not it actually WAS spyware is a different issue, and not one for Wikipedia. But the reputation is a fact. 82.69.37.32 19:35, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I would think that 'Whether or not it actually WAS spyware' is certainly an issue that should be noted here. Should it be noted that Richard Jewell - accused of the Atlanta Olympic bombings - was, in fact, innocent? Many, many people have made contributions here claiming what Claria did, though as none of them were employees, they don't really know the truth about items that they submit as fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.197.87.253 (talk) 01:08, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

• Kmesserly, you should NOT be editing this article, as you are certainly biased in favor of your own company. we generally do not like people to edit articles about themselves or their businesses. You don't have any more authority to dictate the contents of this page than any other wikipedia editor, and should, in fact, not be editing it at all. I reccomend that this user be blocked from editing this page. Ghost of starman 20:09, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GAIN?

I know that "GAIN" was a term of note for Gator, but I cannot remember exactly what it referred to... would someone be able to add something to the article that explains the name? It is mentioned in passing once, but not explained. Zarggg 02:44, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

It stood for Gator Advertising Information Network - basically an attempt to stick with the well-known Gator name while expanding the company's scope from just the eWallet to all the other products listed on the main page.

[edit] Spyware Removal

This article suggests that referring to "spyware removal programs" as such is a use of "weasel words." I have to question this viewpoint's neutrality. The section on the Gator product, although largely unsourced, characterizes Gator as a program that clearly meets the descriptions of spyware. Thus it seems appropriate that programs that remove it are "spyware removal programs." Another reason why I don't think this is a use of weasel words is that the removal programs in question are regarded as "spyware removal programs" regardless of whether or not Gator is spyware. You can argue all you want that Gator is not spyware, but this doesn't make ad-aware or spybot not "spyware removal programs." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dwr12 (talk • contribs) 08:02, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Rise of the dreaded undead!

Hello! According to the british IT new site "The Register", most of Gator/Gain/Claria programmers have now transferred to the "NebuAd Inc.", which is an american targeted net-advertiser outfit, quite similar to the scandalous britsh Phorm system. 82.131.210.162 (talk) 12:05, 23 June 2008 (UTC)