Jump to content

Talk:AOL/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

AOL users' reputation

Well, I'll grant you that it's not a particularly encyclopaedic topic, so it shouldn't be given a great deal of space in the article, but I'm very suprised to see no mention whatsoever of the appalling reputation AOL users have on the Internet. Surely this ought to get a mention somewhere? Tyrhinis 23:08, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, only noticed your entry after I posted my own on the same subject - I agree 100% with you that this should be mentioned, I wish someone with less POV against AOL users (I used to help run an online game that was pestered by AOL users) would write the section though. TH 23:07, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
I remember there being a section or article about it before. I guess it was removed. --myncknm 01:47, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Ah, here it is. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=AOL&diff=44125352&oldid=44122054 --myncknm 01:50, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

The client software

Please, someone write about the actual client software (AOL X.x) in the same vein as the related AOL Explorer, not just only version numbers. A screenshot would be nice. --Geopgeop 17:42, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I added an image request to the top of this talk page. Again, besides the version numbers table in the front, there needs to be more describing the client software. --Geopgeop 10:19, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Move to AOL

This page should be moved to AOL per yesterday's announcement. I have listed AOL for speedy deletion so I can move this page there. Any objections, please let them be heard or I will carry this out. GT 20:13, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

AOL users

Aren't we missing a section about the (perceived?) notoriety of AOL users for breach of netiquette, trolling and generally causing mayhem wherever they appear on the Internet? I'm pretty sure no other ISP has had their users banned from so many websites, services, and online communities, partly because of their proxying policies and random assignment of IP addresses, but also because mostly newbies use their service, since people who "graduate" as netizens tend to shun them and move away to more serious providers whenever possible... Ok, I realize that some would call this POV but just do a google for "AOL users banned" or something similar if you want to see the tip of the iceberg, I'm not the only one with this notion but since I'm pretty biased against AOL users I won't start writing something, hopefully someone else will :) TH 23:03, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

This is something notable about AOL, and should not be removed, although care should be taken to ensure the information is presented in a NPOV manner. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 02:47, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
just for laughs, I added a section at the bottom of the page based on the internet phenomenon that AOL users are nothing more then 12 year old idiots. I do hope this will spread that idea of stupid AOL users while at the same time keeping it from being opinionated.

User:Rukifelth

"Untrue" Note

Why is "Note: Before you read this, please remember that AOL is heavily criticised, so many or some statements are probably untrue." at the top of the page rather than one of the standard templates flagging the article as potentially NPOV or unfactual? What's special about this article? - Chris Wood 14:57, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

GT has removed the non-standard warning. Thanks - Chris Wood 14:28, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Yep. Regardless of whether those allegations might have been true, that thing was hideous. — GT 10:31, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I missed out on the debate for deletion of articles on the Black Bayou role playing game ANTAGONIST, inc. However, if these articles are permanently deleted, please remove the links the them; I was halfway through writing a new page for Black Bayou when I realized it had existed and had been deleted. Having a dead link only serves to frustrate those who'd like to see the article exist.

And this is relevant to AOL, how? *Dan T.* 16:26, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Mac Software Release Timeline

There is a software release timetable for PC's but not for Mac's. Could someone do it please?

Thanks for doing it. Some mistakes I have found, I will try my best to fix them, but it would help if others could too.

WCW

Also, the merger with AOL allowed for Time Warner to vote off WCW (World Championship Wrestling).

Huh? Off of what? For what reason? Context?

MSTCrow 15:33, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Did you not see my reason for placing that in the article at the top of this page? Shady_Joe

Anyway here is the proof once again ( scroll down ): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wcw

AOL google deal

I think the AOL - Google deal shud be updated - http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/dec2005/tc20051221_533090.htm

oh and maybe aol.com >> since its all free now and not only part of the subscribers experience.

Spliff99 06:44, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Worst invention ever?

I'm not sure where, but if someone wants to put a new criticisms category up (since someone wants to mention how AOL users tend to lack netiquette), they could add this reference by PC World calling AOL the worst tech invention ever.

article on yahoo

Keyword Scandal

I've added a new section detailing the keyword scandal, please feel free to expand upon it.

Stuart Steedman 17:08, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

canınız cehenneme orospu çocukları

AOL-Timewarner may be a terrible company/ISP, but they sure have a nice mall

good sushi--152.163.101.8 21:35, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Gold Rush

Hey, I was wondering if anyone could add something about the AOL Gold Rush that is going on right now. aol.com/goldrush

Thanks!! --Zach 00:09, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Technical Strategy

Is this a "technical strategy"? Oddly named, and (while probably true) needs expanding and/or citations. jesup 02:18, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Firefox

Isn't the AOL browser using Firefox and changing the look? It also only works on windows. 70.111.218.254 20:04, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

The AOL Browser is actually called AOL Explorer. They call it a stand alone browser, it used to be available for a download, not sure if it is anymore. It's based on and build off the basic IE application. It's a watered down version of IE.Sivazh 13:34, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Actually I read that the aol browser uses the Gecko (layout engine). 165.230.46.153 21:36, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Page blanking

Reverted the talk page blanking by User:195.93.21.132, he made it say 'hi paranzoik was here PARANZOIK WAS ERE HAHAHAHHA'. 24.55.106.132 01:33, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

AOL guy?

Shouldn't there be a section detailing the AOL guy? -- Argash  |  talk  |  contribs  13:49, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

The link for the retention manual directs to a blank page!!

Block quote

CD ROM Distribution

Once offering only a few hours of free service, the discs now include up to a month's worth of free subscription time.

Citation needed, and maybe add screenshot of last AOL CD or online signup/download screen. Correct copy as of July, 2006: Must sign up with credit card, pay for three months usage, and choose a service plan (contract) of some sort. To get initial payment refunded, must cancel within 90 days of signup.

Source: http://free.aol.com/tryaolfree/cdt.adp?532439

Quote from link referenced above, at the bottom of that page:

If you are not satisfied with AOL for any reason, just call 1-888-698-6892 within 90 days of registration to cancel your account and request a refund of your AOL monthly membership fees.

Note: I am new to the Wiki so please go easy on me. MAL1211 03:50, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Keep your opinions off of Wikipedia please: xdrive.

Maybe this entire article is bad. I don't know, I didn't read the whole thing. But the Xdrive part was obviously biased opinion. I just wanted to know what Xdrive and its services were. Just facts. I wasn't looking for a review. I don't use xdrive or AOl, and have a neutral attitude toward both. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.96.50.30 (talk) 07:00, 6 January 2007 (UTC).

Company purchases

Could we have a list of all the Company purchases from aol and which ones are now defunt. - 75.15.176.201

Should the multiple legal threats resulting in Gaim changing it's name (to Pidgin) be added in the controversy section? (link) Krushia 16:04, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Merge page

I think the page AOL search data scandal. Nobody is going to look up a specific crime of a corporation, unless it's a huge one (not that this isn't, just not big enough that it is its own topic), like maybe the Enron scandal, though it doesn't look like that has a separate article either. This article is almost stub-length, with verifiable data, and a single incident of a corporation. It should fit nicely into the AOL article. --Smokeresearcher 02:14, 14 May 2007 (UTC)


Yeah that seems like a good idea.--Bob12321 05:46, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Eternal September

I notice that this article and Eternal September are inconsistent regarding the date that AOL started providing usenet access. Under the "Massive growth" section, this article states that it was added in "March 1994"... however, the "Usenet newsgroups" section and the Eternal September article state that it was added in 1993. Which is right? --StuartBrady (Talk) 20:10, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Why is there a search box at the top of the page? – Zntrip 01:04, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

How AOL works(worked)?

I'm not sure if I got it right, and it isn't explained well in the article. Can people that are using AOL use any browser, email client, ftp client, etc. but they are given AOL client to use IF they want? Or do they HAVE TO use AOL client software to access internet? 89.216.187.159 21:50, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes. AOL email is available over IMAP and you don't even need to use the AOL client for that. Only thing is, you'd have to use the dialer that comes with AOL 9, instead of windows DUN (the new connection wizard) - and even that is available as a standalone app. Dial up with that, then fire up firefox and eudora or whatever. srs 22:28, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
OK, that's in AOL 9. What about older versions? From article: "Now, the AOL software has a feature called AOL Dialer, or AOL Connect on Mac OS X. This feature allows users to connect to the ISP without running the full interface. This allows users to use only the applications they wish to use, especially if they do not favor the AOL Browser." So was it possible to use other browsers, e-mail clients etc. before AOL 9? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.216.187.159 (talk) 22:59, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
AOL email through IMAP is available, has been for a couple of years now. If you bring your own access, even better, because all AOL services are free with BYOA. The settings are as follows:
Incoming: imap.aol.com, port 143, authentication required (AOL screen name and password)
Outgoing: smtp.aol.com, port 587, auth login required (AOL screen name and password)
AOL members who don't have their own access other than through AOL can just fire up either the client (and minimize it) or the AOL Connection Dialer (standalone app that connects to the AOL network through dialup without client overhead, first released as part of AOL 9.0). Any "modern" version of AOL (that is, anything newer than about AOL 5.0) will allow internet access with any web browser, mail tool, etc., once you connect to the AOL service (if that's your access service). Scarletsmith 08:25, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

AOL Transit Data Network (ATDN)

There is no wiki entry on this interesting resource of AOL's. I'd like to see a topic on it in the page or new wiki entry if possible.Modernliving 21:43, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Insurance scam

I have removed the following material, in a section titled "Insurance scam", that was quite appropriately marked with {{tone}}, {{npov}}, and {{original research}} tags:

Dial Up Advantage, a plan of AOL for dial-up connection which cost $25.90. This plan provides unlimited dial-up connection every month. The cost appears excessive when compared to other plans which cost only for $9.95 that also provide unlimited connection as well. The reason behind this is it includes an insurance plan (PC insurance and identity theft insurance) but information about this insurance is rarely provided to members signing up for this plan. AOL doesn't even provide the coverage of this plan to their members. This means most members can't claim for the insurance because they don't know anything about it in the first place.
The Dial-Up Advantage is, most of the time, the default plan included in AOL installation discs, resulting in many members paying an extra $15.95 for insurance that they are not even aware of.

The cited problems don't appear to have been addressed in at least two weeks, so I felt it was proper to remove it, but I've copied it here to allow editors to consider how to fix it. I suspect there is much truth to this material, but such highly contentious and accusatory material really must be neutrally worded and include reliable sources that are explicitly cited to allow for verification. The above material seems to be a angry personal analysis with many unsourced claims. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 07:56, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

What exactly is the suspected copyright problem with this talk page or should the tag/category be removed? Ashley VH 06:42, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Poorly Written Aticle

This article seems to be very opinionated and poorly written. It also contains many references to current events and has several biased speculations. I think it's in need of a drastic cleanup. Tgruwell (talk) 03:41, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

hi i'm an aol customer. i also think some of these comments about aol are biased and POV. maybe there's a difference between how aol operates in uk and usa. i am new to the internet (3 years)and i'm old (40)I don't have the benefit of help from peers and i've had to teach myself everthing about using the internet from scratch..AOL really helped, their support team where patient enough to teach me rudmentery internet skills. i know i'm supposed to discuss the article here rather than the subject but it seems that people are using this article as device to convince people not to sign with aol. how about being a bit more balanced. (i'm too new to all this to be confident at doing it myself) i've had no problems with aol and would recommend it to others. Bawdekin (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 20:06, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

AOL Keywords phased out?

I'm a German AOL customer and recently noticed that AOL Germany phased out AOL keywords on 01-01-2008. Therefore, I can't use keywords any more with my German AOL account, even if I use the US client software! Is that only the case in Germany, or are AOL keywords also phased out in other countries? 86.56.34.161 (talk) 16:52, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Keywords are being phased out, according to an acquaintance of mine who still works for the company, as part of the overall move to using Web forms and especially Web 2.0 structures. Scarletsmith (talk) 07:35, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Unclear fundamentals

The article needs a concrete list of the web and other services that the company provides, such as Internet connectivity (as an ISP), a search engine, chat, and whatever else is notable. -- Beland (talk) 00:43, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

What is AOL?

I don't know what AOL is. It's really not clear from the article. I came here to find out what AOL 9.0 is. I even found it on the page (in a table), but it doesn't say what it is. Okay, it's a company. But what am I supposed to think when someone tells me to install AOL 9.0 on my computer? Is it a chat messenger like Yahoo? Is it a browser? This article is really unlike other Wikipedia articles, where all the essential information is usually in the first paragraph. Zed toocool (talk) 18:22, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

AOL 9.0 is a version of their desktop software. Think of it like Internet Explorer + Yahoo Messenger + E-Mail Client + Privacy invasion, all in one package. --68.109.134.31 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 02:52, 18 September 2008 (UTC).

Netscape Purchase

I admit upfront that I am a former AOL user and I am totally negative POV because of my experiences with 1. Censorship of criticism of AOL in chats, 2. Customer-unfriendly customer service 3. It took 5 tries for me to end my service and I had to get a lawyer to prevent them from ruining my credit over billing after I had requested end of service.
An issue that I believe someone less POV than I should address is the fact that AOL spent millions to aquire Netscape, citing this reason for the constantly rising price of the "unlimited" (don't get me started) service, but continues to this day to use IE Explorer as a base for the AOL browser. Why didn't they switch to Netscape? What was the purpose of aquiring a company/product, only to let it wither and die? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.96.106.130 (talk) 15:09, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

The short answer: A deal with Microsoft.
The slightly longer answer: Back in the days when AOL and Microsoft were (1) still on reasonably good terms and (2) not yet competitors in the online service realm, AOL had a deal with Microsoft allowing AOL to develop its browser based on IE. As the two companies became more competitive, that arrangement was in danger, and with Microsoft beginning to make deals with PC companies to put MSN on the desktop instead of AOL, AOL began developing a client using Gecko (the Netscape browser engine) that was to be a part of AOL 7.0 (and eventually did turn out a client for Mac OSX using Gecko) as a way of fighting back. Eventually, the two parties came to an agreement once more: Microsoft would stop its push to displace AOL from the PC desktop if AOL would return to using IE as the browser engine for their PC products. Thus, the once-promising synergy between AOL and Netscape came to a more-or-less abrupt halt, and Netscape lingered for years until its mercy killing. Scarletsmith (talk) 18:43, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Seems like such a waste.. I was experimenting with Netscape Navigator back at an earlier version and found it much superior to IE. But when Netscape was bought by AOL, my negative feelings overcame my appreciation and I became another lemming. I still think something concerning how this situation affected AOL pricing and customer dissatisfaction should be mentioned under "Criticisms" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.96.106.130 (talk) 21:00, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Name change to America Online

The 'History' section states that "After the two companies parted ways in October 1989, Quantum changed the service's name to America Online.", and further down the text again "In October 1991, Quantum changed its name to America Online.". The 1989 date seems to be backed up by at least some evidence, is it ok to correct the second statement? --91.64.217.27 (talk) 23:43, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

aol:// links?

how, can i open these? i guess i need AOLs browser, but do i need to be a subscriber too?--UltraMagnus (talk) 01:34, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi UltraMagnus, yes to open these aol:// Links you need AOL indeed, because these links are pointing to AOL's RAINMAN content. RAINMAN is a scripting language of AOL itself, the AOL people used it for the most of AOL areas and so on...... in the early years and up to around 2003.
Only the AOL software is able to show RAINMAN contents so you need the software to be able to see this RAINMAN sites.
Greets from the german wikipedia ;)
TheWho
P.S. For future questions you'll find me at the german wikipedia projekt with this name
TheWho —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.216.207.222 (talk) 22:44, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

40% Satisfaction Article

So I popped on here to show a friend of mine why they ought not to go with AOL for their Internet connection, and the information here was helpful. What I was surprised to find was that there wasn't a section about AOL's many customers that did not even have computers.

I figured, out of all of the controversies and very public 'oops' moments for America OnLine, that this would be right up top. Am I the only one who remembers this article? Does anyone have a link or archive of it?

70.103.69.202 02:53, 5 November 2007 (UTC)


This "incident" is not in the article because it was a hoax. 134.84.168.112 (talk) 19:11, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

It's not a hoax. I have internal records to prove it. Not opting to incriminate myself for ND/NCA. --68.109.134.31 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 02:54, 18 September 2008 (UTC).

Something is wrong.

KOL or even Radio KOL does not have an article. It is a service of AOL so treat it like a service. KOL is the only good thing from AOL. 90% of the population of kids in the U.S.A. are CRYING that Radio KOL is ending! Sonicfan12345 00:03, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

KOL, RED (Kids and Teens) and the AOL Radio is *DEAD*. Should be documented. --68.109.134.31 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 02:53, 18 September 2008 (UTC).

Pedophilia and AOL

Would it be relevant to this article to add a section (or just a comment) about the prevalence of pedophilia in AOL chat rooms? The AOL Kids Only section and chat room practically invited pedophiles to come prey on young teenagers. I know AOL has been involved in several pedophilia/sexual abuse scandals, and it might be relevant to comment on this somehow. Thoughts? --Katiej88 (talk) 08:50, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it would be appropriate. In all fairness and neutrality, the criticism of pedophilia on AOL should be pitted against the number of cases AOL has cooperated with law enforcement to identify, catch and prosecute offenders of such crimes. (Disclosure: I used to assist in the identification of such individuals) --68.109.134.31 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 02:50, 18 September 2008 (UTC).

"Two weeks before Christmas"

"Two weeks before Christmas, thousands of workers were put on notice that their positions were being eliminated altogether"... this sentence is very histrionic. The mention of Christmas is needless but if we have a date from the source we could put "two weeks befrre X date" or better yet, "on X date". gren グレン 10:32, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I believe Christmas offers relevance since not many layoffs happen around the holidays. A majority of AOL employees were Christian. --68.109.134.31 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 02:47, 18 September 2008 (UTC).

AOL discontinued providing access to Usenet on February 9, 2005, not on June 25, 2005 or January 25, 2005?

Thre is a contradiction between [[1]] and [[2]].

Thre is another contradiction between [[3]] and [[4]].


Anyone with correct informatin, please go ahead and correct it.

--YOSHIYUKI OGAWA (talk) 22:37, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Error -- please fix

From the History -- Change in focus subsection:

"On January 28, 2007, the last domestic AOL owned and operated call center (based in Oklahoma City) closed its doors, and, during October 2007, the last call center in Canada was also shut down. All customer service calls are now handled by outsourced representatives in Ogden, Utah, India, the Philippines, and Mexico."

Since Ogden, Utah is a domestic American location, this section is incorrect. Please fix. Softlavender (talk) 12:25, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Since the calls are 'outsourced it's not "AOL owned and operated." --LarryMac | Talk 12:35, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Then the sentence should simply read " ... the last AOL owned and operated call center ... closed its doors ...." I still do not believe this would be accurate, since AOL obviously operates and controls its call centers, outsourced or not. They are still AOL call centers. Softlavender (talk) 01:30, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
Many companies can "outsource" their operations, so "outsource" would be accurate to describe a contractor relationship. However, it would be more detailed to state that outsourcing to another country is known as "offshoring". --68.109.134.31 (talk) 02:45, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Colin Powell

Was Colin Powell really a director of AOL? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.141.163.130 (talk) 01:23, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, he was on the board of directors at several companies before becoming Sec. of State including AOL[5] and Gulfstream.64.236.128.42 (talk) 18:31, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Also please fix

I did not hear of AOL canceling its Xdrive feature as of yet, and the source on the page cannot be located, under cite 55, please update with a good crediable source, or please delete the cite, and the assoicated unsubstancial information! thank you, 75.172.176.26 (talk) 08:08, 26 October 2008 (UTC)Noaru

Poor quality of sources

Several of the citations refer to sources which are not "reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" (Cites: 10, 15, 19, 20, 21, 30, 37, 38). Some are self-published or on Wikipedia (Cites: 23, 37, 38). Other citations refer to data no longer available and thus not verifiable (Cites: 1, 4, 7, 24, 32, 45, 50, 52, 55). Still others do not directly support the statements (Cite: 25, 26, 27, 47). These should be replaced by Reliable Sources per Wikipedia:SOURCES or the sections of the article reliant on those citations should be modified to remove dependency on unreliable information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmr50 (talk • contribs) 02:29, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I don't see anything wrong with cite 19. Here also is a company press release What is your preference? -SusanLesch (talk) 19:36, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
I agree that a lot of the cites marked as "unreliable" or "verify credibility" are just flat out mislabeled. Especially in dealing with the October 2007 layoffs, I personally read the press release with Randy Falco's declaration that layoffs would start "immediately", I personally witnessed the signs on the conference room doors, and I personally heard employees calling it "Bloody Tuesday". The blogs cited as "unreliable" are just reporting what actually HAPPENED, Jmr50 (talk. Therefore, I've removed the "unreliable" markings regarding the Oct 2007 layoffs. Scarletsmith (talk) 00:10, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Missing information: WHY is AOL Hometown, etc closed?

This article is missing a vital piece of information. Exactly why did AOL decide to eliminate Hometown, Journals and other services on 31 October 2008? There seems to be a lack of information about this on the Internet. 23skidoo (talk) 00:56, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:AOL/Archive_2&oldid=1136485803"