Talk:NCH Software

(Untitled)

I have installed the video converter once, and now i notice a context menu in explorer that reads "Extract with Express Zip", from this company, which i had never installed. I'm also surprised to read that the article used to have a warning about the software bad behaviour, that has been apparently removed. I think that the warning should be restored, and probably report the user that removed it, as it seems clear that the company was behind that change. Just search for "Extract with Express Zip" and you can find something like this: http://douglaswhitaker.com/2013/04/on-the-perils-of-express-scribe-software-to-aid-transcription/ Norfindel (talk) 01:21, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Shouldn't we be discussing the fact that this company in fact produces malicious software that purposefully makes itself incredibly hard to uninstall?

-- i agree it should be at the top of the page not near the bottom, they also charge a lot for limit support that may not resolve any issues you have 81.136.240.238 (talk) 12:20, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

-- Absolutely agree. This is in the "scamware" groups of software. The tools may do some of what you want them to, but the small print of the Ts and Cs are beyond what anyone would expect. And removing the software is a headache as installing one tool means the whole system gets polluted with offers and links to the other tools. All those links that pop up on the Right Click context menu take some mean hacking of the registry to remove. I'm an IT Support Engineer by trade and am for ever cleaning this kind of stuff off of unsuspecting client's computers. 86.10.167.123 (talk) 12:07, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

-- NCH Software is proud of our numerous helpful products and are always working to improve our software based on the valuable feedback provided by our users. We provide online help through our Support Team, forum, and helpful online resources. Many of NCH Software's products, such as VideoPad and Zulu, have been chosen as highest reviewed software in their category. We have been listening to our customer's comments and we no longer include additional programs with our install files. We are also working to make our products easier to remove from your computer. NCH Software will continue to work with our customers to improve the productivity and useability of our products. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.181.78.56 (talk) 14:48, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

-- I came here because I saw yet another report elsewhere that these scumware merchants had stomped all over someone's PC and its file associations. I was bitten some years ago, and vowed never to have any more dealings with these people. I am surprised that NCH Software is still in business. The company may be "proud of [its] numerous helpful products" – the software may be great but I will never know – but surely it cannot be proud of its murky business practices. I simply will not buy the line that "we no longer include additional programs with our install files". Once bitten twice shy. MK (talk) 16:44, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

-- this page is tagged for deletion. It serves the purpose of bring the companies business practices into the public forum, which is a good thing but, should we delete the product list complete with which OS they run on? Jimmeyjazz (talk) 21:14, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Removing section violating WP:NOTCATALOG

Hi, everyone. Hi, Unscintillating. I'd like to inform you that I closed the AfD. I hope there is no more technical reasons against deleting the section. Oh, and sorry for the first revert by the way. I thought mentioning WP:SNOW clears all doubts. For some reason it didn't. But, if there are other objections, I am listening.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 04:11, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi Lisa. I'm trying to understand why you removed the table. No technical problems, but it just makes the article worse in my opinion. WP:NOTCATALOG just says "Sales catalogues. An article should not include product pricing or availability information...". But this doesn't seem to apply in this case, nor any of the other clauses. Lists of products are allowed outside of these clauses, e.g. List of iPod models --Mrjulesd (talk) 17:34, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Mrjulesd. I must admit, your comment baffles me. Please correct me if I am wrong, but you seem to value some of the words in that section (not all of them) and not the purpose of the words. To quote: Wikipedia encompasses many lists of links to articles within Wikipedia that are used for internal organization or to describe a notable subject. In that sense, Wikipedia functions as an index or directory of its own content. However, Wikipedia is not a directory of everything in the universe that exists or has existed. What comes afterwards, is non-comprehensive list of examples to improve our understanding.

As I see, this table isn't a list of links to Wikipedia articles and not effort to index Wikipedia's own contents. On the contrary, it is a product comparison table used to promote the products. (There are a couple of blue links but they are either circular redirects or incorrect links.) Now, if there was another reason, like prose that covered a certain point of view regarding a range of products, that would have been different. e.g. Wikipedia has extensive lists of seasons and episodes for TV series because those TV series are extensively discussed to death. But in this case, this list isn't even as good as the link in the infobox. If the company go out of business, the list becomes a [list of indiscriminate item with no value beyond the value of words alone (zero). An encyclopedia works the other way around: It adds words because they represent a value.

I hope I am clear enough.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 22:43, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Codename Lisa: I think you may be misinterpreting policy. WP:NOTCATALOG does indeed say "Wikipedia encompasses many lists of links to articles within Wikipedia that are used for internal organization or to describe a notable subject." However, it does not say "lists that do not comprise of links should be deleted" which I think is your interpretation. Also I feel the whole section WP:ISNOT is mainly used to decide what is notable, and the notability of NCH software, and hence their products, has already been established in the WP:AfD.

Now it's possible that the table might promote their products, but even that seem dubious due to the criticisms beneath. But it also provides a lot of information about the subject. A WP:COMMONSENSE view would be that anyone interested in NCH would go to the the article now, and the information (s)he could get from it would be now considerably less than before the edit. So the article would be better with that information, since anyone interested in NCH would also be interested in their products. The company is still in business, but even if it went out of business people could continue using their products. --Mrjulesd (talk) 11:52, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Actually, I am afraid you are wrong about WP:ISNOT. It is one of the five founding policies and is the antecedent for every policy in Wikipedia. Notability is just a guideline. (Not even a policy.) In fact, WP:N explicitly mentions A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article—perhaps because it violates what Wikipedia is not, particularly the rule that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Also, I don't see why you are discussing the absence of the word "delete" in WP:NOTCATALOG; that policy forbids such a list; so unless you really have an alternative to deletion for the forbidden content – erasure or removal? – I dare say deletion is the logical consequence.

Thanks for informing me about the Criticism section below it; it must be deleted as well because:

1. It is not about the article subject; it is a compilation of loosely-related perceived problems about NCH software, not NCH itself. (WP:IINFO violation.)

2. They often lack sources or come with an unreliable source like forums. (also see Wikipedia:Potentially unreliable sources for a list.)

Per WP:Criticism, a criticism section is unfavorable.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 21:50, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

First, this AfD nom thought that you and I had animated this removal in the AfD as shown by the edit comment that removed the material, although I see no objective basis for this claim upon review of the AfD.  Next, the removal was cited to WP:SNOW (above), saying, "I thought mentioning WP:SNOW clears all doubts."  Again, I see no objective basis for this claim upon review of WP:SNOW.  Now the nom states, "As I see, this table isn't a list of links to Wikipedia articles and not effort [sic] to index Wikipedia's own contents.", implying that these are the only purposes for lists on Wikipedia, which is incorrect.  IMO, the removal remains unexplained.  Unscintillating (talk) 21:35, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, well, when you so grossly throw my explanation out of the window, you end up with an unexplained action. As I said, this table violates both WP:NOTCATALOG and WP:IINFO because there is virtually no context but promotion for it. Being a list of links is only one of exceptions to this cardinal policy.

Codename Lisa (talk) 21:56, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Codename Lisa: so now you've withdrawn your Afd nomination you're going to delete the article bit by bit? Until there is nothing left? Do you really think that makes for a better encyclopedia? It's already been established that NCH Software is a notable article, you're denying anyone interested to get the full information on this topic. Please respond to my WP:COMMONSENSE arguments.

Well me and Unscintillating think you should reverse all this. Now on a democratic vote, you lose two votes to one. Because our interpretations of policy disagree with yours. Do you have anyone who agrees with you? --Mrjulesd (talk) 22:52, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Actually, bit by bit deletion was Unscintillating's suggestion, on the condition that there is something left. He's rationale was that it is the way to deal with this case of violation. I am just trying to have a compromise, but he hasn't budged yet. Also, common sense tells me this article is only an article by name; in reality, it is just an attempt to promote NCH. You can study a detailed response above.

Wikipedia is not democracy and voting alone hold no value against consensus. Policies are representative of the community consensus and therefore the vote of you and Unscintillating alone is far from enough to violate them. But I do not intend to play unfair. I intend to go through dispute resolution process.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 03:01, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

I am uncomfortable with being cited as a reason for doing things when I am not aware that I have animated such reasoning.  Such as here the idea, this "bit by bit" deletion, I don't know why you have said that.  As far as I know the only thing I've said was at the AfD where I mentioned the words "ordinary editing" in reference to a statement in WP:BEFORE.  AfD is not cleanup.  I am not aware that I have or have not "budged", nor am I aware that editors should or should not "budge".  One of your arguments was that WP:SNOW is a reason to delete the section on products.  I reviewed WP:SNOW, and I see no objective basis that WP:SNOW is a reason to remove the section on products.  What I take from this is that you think that bad arguments will strengthen your negotiating position.  I, on the other hand, think that making bad arguments means that you are making bad arguments.  Unscintillating (talk) 04:19, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

• Codename Lisa: while it is true that WP is not a democracy, it is built on consensus, which is a similar process except that strength of arguments are also taken into consideration. Now, if you assumed that the three viewpoints of us had similar strength, then you would be going against consensus.

I think in cases where there isn't an agreement on interpretation of policy, the best thing to do would be to instead look at common sense arguments. Now I've made a number of them, and I would like you to comment on them please. --Mrjulesd (talk) 13:18, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello, guys. I was about to start an R.F.C to resolve this matter but I am engaged elsewhere. So, I am abandoning this topic indefinitely. But I'd like to say that despite our disagreement, it was an honor to work with a level-headed editor such as you, Mrjulesd. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 01:13, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

OK thanks for the discussion Codename Lisa. By debating things in a friendly way I think we can both improve our understanding of policy. --Mrjulesd (talk) 10:28, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

I'll go ahead and pick it up for Codename Lisa. I'll add to her argument (for which I'm frankly shocked anybody who's familiar with precedent on extensive lists of non-notable examples could disagree in this case) the basic matter of what is WP:DUE (i.e. that things within an article should be presented in proportion to their presence in reliable secondary sources). The bulk of the list is completely unsourced, and that it dominates the page means it's evidently undue. A good first step would be to strip away everything but those with sources. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:35, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

(I'll also add that the criticism section is ridiculous, too. Not only is such a section usually frowned upon except when particularly notable in multiple reliable sources, but the content appeared to be written by frustrated users -- I went ahead and just removed the "criticisms" with no sources at all and the one with a single ref to an apparent issue reporting site [but a dead link]. The existence of this section is also a problem, as again being WP:UNDUE. A better article would take these sources from the list and produce prose worthy of an encyclopedia rather than a brief description of the company, long list of products, and long criticism section.) --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:40, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

(Final update before waiting for responses: The other two entries in the criticism section sourced forum posts, synthesized with virus reports for evaluation. Removed the whole section.) --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:43, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

User:Rhododendrites: OK take up User:Codename Lisa case if you so wish. But if you read my comments carefully I was actually arguing against her reasons for deletion rather than her deleting per se.

Now the criticisms section has no sources cited, and therefore can't be defended from deletion using that argument. However, a cursory search on Google reveals considerable controversy over their software, along the lines of the criticisms section. But whether any sources fulfill reliability requirements is something I don't know.

Now you can choose to merely delete that section, and leave at that. However, I would appreciate it if instead you could see if you could find some reliable sources so the material could be reinstated. I feel the way you have left it could give a false impression of NCH software being something you should allow on your computer.

Examples of sources critical of NCH software:

http://www.bleepingcomputer.com/forums/t/520711/cant-get-rid-of-the-dreaded-nch-software/

http://www.makeuseof.com/tag/whats-problem-nch-software-remove/ What’s The Problem With NCH Software & How To Remove It?

http://superuser.com/questions/99492/is-software-from-nch-software-safe

https://forum.avast.com/index.php?topic=141671.0 Topic: Help removing NCH software (Read 2969 times)

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.privacy.spyware/iwi7WPvC5sc WavePad (NCH Software) <== spyware/malware/virus/trojan

http://forums.techarena.in/antivirus-software/1311268.htm WavePad (NCH Software) <== spyware/malware/virus/trojan

http://www.spywareinfoforum.com/topic/75505-nch-swift-sound-software/ NCH Swift Sound software

There are many more, probably hundreds. But whether there are any reliable sources I'm not sure, but the makeuseof.com article may be. --Mrjulesd (talk) 17:36, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

@Mrjulesd: forum posts are just about never reliable sources (with extremely rare exception, as of course anybody can go into a forum and write whatever they want). The Makeuseof.com blog post isn't great since it's still self-published but I wouldn't have a big problem using it as a source for the aspects of the company's software you're talking about.

As a more general comment, if removing the unencyclopedic, unsourced or poorly sourced, undue parts of an article leaves something that isn't worth keeping, then whether the article should be kept should be called into question. I didn't see the AfD, but would have probably entered a weak delete. Since it's a relatively old company for the industry, seemingly prolific, and seems to have a marginal reputation as a whole, it might be notable -- but I haven't found sources indicating such is the case and those cited certainly don't (even those that are reliable are about individual software products, not NCH itself). But that ship has sailed. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:12, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

@Rhododendrites: OK I'll leave it at that, at least for the moment, I'm dealing with other issues. The AfD was at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/NCH_Software in case you're interested. If you decide to reopen I may comment. --Mrjulesd (talk) 18:34, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Wavepad Audio Editor.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:07, 12 February 2020 (UTC)