Talk:MacUpdate

Missing review?

It would be nice if someone would talk about their experience of this website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skysong263 (talk • contribs) 03:26, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Adware bundling claim

This article (link) claims that macupdate started bundling adware in their downloads as of the end of 2015. Can anyone corroborate the claim? I'm not inclined to test it out on my machine. If true, it seems like it would be relevant information to add to the main page, especially since it currently reads like someone from macupdate was writing a rosy review of themselves (my opinion). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.2.221.92 (talk) 04:57, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Notability

This article has only one reference and it's to its own website. this Google News Archive search shows that the subject has been referenced many times and the article itself claims to have been featured by several reliable sources. Notability isn't established but there are references that should be gone through before it's deleted on its face. OlYeller^Talktome 16:59, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

But they're not in the article, and until they are, it makes no difference. HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 21:58, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't want to start quoting policy/guidelines but they don't have to be in the article for it to pass an AfD. For instance, people can point out 15 great refs in the AfD that (very sadly) never get added but the result is Keep. They don't have to be added because people would start forcing clean up with AfDs. We don't have a deadline to meet.

What I'm interested in, and this might be the bigger question with all of these articles and other similar "publications", is the notability of publications. For instance, it's almost impossible to find articles about CNN and NBC but they're obviously notable. In my opinion, there's sort of a hole in WP:N when it comes to publications, what the difference between a print and online publication is (crappy magazine/blog, potato/potato), and to a lesser extent, what journalists are notable. If that problem could be solved, assessing the notability of all of these barely-publications would be much easier. Just a thought. OlYeller^Talktome 22:33, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, try to work it out here. The one source it lists does not even use the phrase MacEdition and Google only turns up things like "Software XY Mac Edition" (besides the site itself, which has been defunct for two years and can't justify its own notability). Such I figure it ought to be one of the more straightforward cases. HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 23:56, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

NPOV dispute

MacUpdate and Koingo Software entered into an advertising venture in early 2013 and offered users of MacUpdate free licenses of its DataGuardian and MacCleanse products. However, due to a misunderstanding on one or both parties, the licenses were revoked.

Attempts to add this information to the community involvement portion of this article have been deleted multiple times. Additionally, it has become evident there is an editing war being waged on Wikipedia to continually add misleading information to each other's pages in attempts to discredit each other.

Suggested that all information continue to be removed until proper statements from both companies are issued and the mainstream media publishes a third party unbiased point of view. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alex.loggan (talk • contribs) 06:12, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Edit Request

Request 1:

Information to be added or removed: Add the following to the end of the "MacUpdate Desktop" section

Following acquisition by Clario, a new security feature was launched in August 2020, which brought advanced threat protection to the MacUpdate website.

Explanation of issue: Product updated, needs to be reflected in article

References supporting change: https://www.macupdate.com/blog/post/90-macupdate-joins-forces-with-clario

Request 2:

Information to be added or removed: Add the following paragraph at the end of the introduction.

As of November 2020, there are about 27000 hand-picked apps available on MacUpdate website for download.

Explanation of issue: Specifying number of apps on the website.

References supporting change: https://www.macupdate.com/

Request 3:

Information to be added or removed: Update the "Categories" section as follows:

Software on MacUpdate is organized into 10 categories, each with additional sub-categories:

• Antivirus
• Business
• Customization
• Developer Tools
• Drivers
• Education
• Finance
• Games
• Graphics & Design
• Health & Fitness
• Internet Utilities
• Lifestyle & Hobby
• Medical
• Music & Audio
• Photography
• Productivity
• Security
• System
• Utilities
• Travel
• Video

Explanation of issue: Categories need to be updated

References supporting change: https://www.macupdate.com/explore/categories

Request 4:

Information to be added or removed: In the introductory paragraph, the last paragraph should be changed to:

In 2007, MacUpdate launched the MacUpdate Promo program, which offers a Macintosh application (or bundle of applications) at a discount. MacUpdate Promo also sells software bundles three or four times a year, which include multiple Mac applications at a considerable discount. The MacUpdate Promo program has since then transformed into MacUpdate Shop.

Explanation of issue: No longer a promo website, has lunched into the MacUpdate Shop.

References supporting change: https://www.shop.macupdate.com

Request 5:

Information to be added or removed: In the introductory paragraph, add the following sentence at the end:

In 2020, MacUpdate was acquired by Clario Tech ltd., a London-based cybersecurity company.

Explanation of issue: Updating information on acquisition.

References supporting change: https://www.macupdate.com/blog/post/90-macupdate-joins-forces-with-clario

Request 6:

Information to be added or removed: Update the logo

Explanation of issue: Updating old logo with new one

References supporting change: https://static.macupdate.com/site/img/common/mu_logo.png — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nebuladreamer999 (talk • contribs) 07:43, November 26, 2020 (UTC)

Hi @Nebuladreamer999: Thank you for using the request edit template. I have added your signature to your request and added your paid status to the top of this page so you do not have to declare your status every time you request a change on this page. When you submit a comment in the future, please use four tildes (which look like ~) at the end of the comment so that Wikipedia will add your signature. An editor will assess this request at a later date. If you have any questions, please post on the help desk (click me!) Thanks and happy editing! Z1720 (talk) 21:38, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Request #1: Oppose: "a new security ... advanced threat protection" is too vague or industry jargon. Advanced threat protection doesn't mean anything to Wikipedia's general audience.

Request #2: Basically Support: It is normal on any software page to include information on the volume of users, transactions, etc. to get an idea of scope, but we don't need editorialized language like "hand-picked". Something like "It hosts 27,000 apps." would be adequate.

Request #3: Oppose: We prefer a summary of what the company does as oppose to a list of products per "not a directory" (see here). Support removing this section, which is probably out-dated/incorrect.

Request #4: Oppose: The only citation provided is a shop page. In general, in most cases, Wikipedia relies on books, press, and scholarly works, not shopping pages.

Request #5: Support: Unambiguously, the owner of the company is important. Being acquired is one of the biggest events in a company's history.

Request #6: Support: as a non-controversial edit, the company should go ahead and update the logo.

I have no connection to the article-subject. CorporateM (Talk) 03:37, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi CorporateM, I am new to the world of responding to request edits. Your support/oppose comments seem like good calls. I am wondering if there is a reason you do not implement them and dispose of the edit request. Is there any reason I should continue the discussion rather than implement? Mastimido (talk) 14:18, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

 Done: Selectively implemented with wording favored by comments from Nebuladreamer999. Ferkijel (talk) 09:50, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Original research? Citing the webpage itself

Regarding this sentence:

Continuing examples of this include an "anti-virus security" scan that also downloads Clario software when users attempt to download any app from MacUpdate.

References

My concern is that the website itself is cited for this. If we were citing a trade publication, I'd have no problem, because we're relying on a reliable source. However, we're citing the site itself.

1. How are we concluding that this affects all downloads?
2. How are we concluding that other software is bundled in the download?

For obvious reasons, I don't want to try the link if there is a less-than-benevolent payload. I also don't think we should be drawing conclusions based on one download page. —C.Fred (talk) 12:43, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Whitewashing. Sockpuppetry?

It appears that certain users are continually removing anything that could be construed as negative. For example the adware and dark pattern "claims" which are actually facts that are backed up by more than one citation and reference. Anyone care to elaborate? What usually happens when certain users repeatedly try to whitewash an article? While there is no direct evidence of sockpuppetry yet, these users appear to be associated with the article's subjectmatter in some way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bigmaaac (talk • contribs) 00:47, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

@Bigmaaac: Please see Wikipedia:Assume good faith and don't make groundless accusations. The two IP address who have removed material are unrelated, which is easily verifiable; one is in Texas and the other is in Australia. The edits appear more to be an attempt to make sure the article contains reliable sources and no original research. ~Anachronist (talk) 01:48, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

@Anachronist: Thanks, I *am* assuming good faith and it isn't an "accusation" per-se, it's more of a suspicion since they're both removing the same content, including content which is clearly not original research i.e the adware issue which was widely reported on in various unrelated publications and forums on the internet. Also while those IP addresses differ when they are removing edits they leave almost identical coments. Which is quite curious indeed, no?

No. I would have removed it also. ~Anachronist (talk) 22:19, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

MacKeeper

The general consensus regarding MacKeeper is that it historically has been, and still is, rogue software/malware/adware/scamware/whatever you want to call it, it's shady as and no amount of PR spin is going to erase that history and reputation. Users from various IP addresses (likely using something like tunnelbear or equivalent) consistently remove all references to MacKeeper's shadier aspects claiming bias or incorrect information. There is no bias, there are simply facts - a rudimental Google, Bing or whatever search clearly shows thousands of results going back to all attesting that MacKeeper is problematic. This includes pretty much all anti-virus companies and cannot be explained away as "bias". It's clearly in the public interest to know that the parent company of MacUpdate also owns and operates such software. Bigmaaac (talk) 07:07, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Irrelevant. This article is not about MacKeeper, so details about it don't belong here. We have a separate article on that. ~Anachronist (talk) 22:44, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Normally I'd agree, but the fact that that they own and operate a malware app seems quite relevant. Bear in mind that MacUpdate itself has been used to distribute adware/shady apps on the past. Likely a long term play for them and just a matter of time until they revert back to their old tricks of injecting malware on the site. Either way IMHO it's important to include this as these things are quite related. Bigmaaac (talk) 03:18, 16 December 2021 (UTC)