Talk:Gmail/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

Security

I heard a rumor that, although the login screen for Gmail is a secure HTTPS connection, the data being sent back and forth by AJAX is unsecured and not sent through this connection. Is this possible/true? — Omegatron 13:54, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I believe this is true. Gmail sends your login credentials on an SSL connection, then transmits your labels, contacts, emails, and all other data over an unsecured connection. I don't believe it's the only service to do so; Yahoo! Mail doesn't, I believe, have HTTPS:// at the URL's start. However, Gmail incorporates a connection that is encrypted, accessible by changing the URL from http://mail.google.com/mail/ to https://mail.google.com/mail/. It can be encrypted, it just isn't by default. Let's all suggest that as a feature request to Google. Maybe they'll change it. -- Tuvok^^{Talk|Desk|Contribs}  03:19, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Both your remarks regarding Gmail security are true. I would however like to refer you to the current state of the Security section (1.3) of the original article. It currently reads as though Gmail was all https and toots this as an exclusive feature. As you both know that statement is false. Voyagerfan5761, perhaps you should change the section to read something like your above comment. --NHelke 20:08, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I have rewritten the first paragraph of the section. I think it does work better, now that you mention it. — Tuvok[^T@lk/_{Improve me}] 06:14, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Criticism

Doesn't the criticism section see a bit biased, at minimal? It seems to not be neutral... anyone else think a good cleanup is in order? P3net 03:09, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree it's a bit biassed. I also did a bit of a cleaup, but since i am biased too, it's pretty hard. Martijn Hoekstra 21:29, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Then how should we go about cleaning it? Wait for someone non-biased to come along? Flag it? P3net 03:58, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

if you're up for the task, be bold, and go for it. Martijn Hoekstra 04:05, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I flagged it with {{POV-section}} so that others know it's being disputed. I'm going to go through and do my best to make it neutral P3net 04:14, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, I went through and removed some of the stuff, and added a bunch of {{fact}} tags. At the state the section is, though, I think we should just start from the beginning with that section. Anyone else agree? P3net 04:25, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

You amaze me. How can users of a service like Gmail not be biased? Readers of Wikipedia deserve to be given the big picture, i.e., the pros and cons of using Gmail. If this means demonstrating the treatment of users by Gmail [with appropriate citations], then so be it. I don't see where the issue of neutrality comes into play here, as users have right to expect a certain level of service from a major corporation like Google. 194.129.64.62

I doubt P3net is trying to say that there should be no criticism, I know I don't say that. However, the way the criticism was worded was very biased. There is still the issue of structure in the criticism section. I propose to structure it a bit more to split the criticism in a webclient and a service part. Martijn Hoekstra 19:09, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

That's what I'm trying to say. I agree with your proposal. P3net 00:13, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

can anyone explain what the "attachment warning" thingy is? Again, a criticism section is needed, but if it can't be explained any further I'm afraid I have to remove it. Martijn Hoekstra 19:09, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Umm... I don't know. I'd say we remove that part. P3net 00:13, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I tried to do some pov-cleaning on the "Errors, Design Flaws, and Absent features" but a lot of it seems to be begging the question, i.e. things are just assumed to be errors and design flaws (as opposed to, say, someone's opinion that they are). Makgraf 20:55, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree the heading of that part in not very good. I already proposed to split the criticism in Client, Service, and I propose to keep the privacy issues seperate.Martijn Hoekstra 22:06, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

The header has been changed, and I think the time might be ripe to remove the {POV-section} tag. The section does still need some cleaning and styling, but that's not a POV matter. Martijn Hoekstra 17:14, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I removed the POV tag, as it's no longer a point of view issue, but more a minor bias, if anything. I'd say it's good as it is, and the article in general qualifies for its good article rating. P3net 03:07, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

The point about the calendar being unavailable with languages other than English (US) is not specific enough. I currently have mine set as English (UK) and have no problem accessing the calendar. Which non English (US) languages cannot use the calendar? Trig 10:51, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

The date format does not appear to be limited to MM-DD-YYYY. It appears as DD-m (01-Feb), dropping the year if it is still the current year. Once the year differs, English (US) language displays the dates as MM-DD-YYYY and English (UK) displays the dates as DD-MM-YYYY. Trig 10:59, 8 February 2007 (UTC)