Talk:IronSource

Possible Insubstantial claim

• FoxTab is an add-on developed by the 'FoxTab team' and their website has no affiliations with IronSource or anyone like that. That add-on had 20 million users but only 123k users now from the AMO page.

http://www.foxtab.com/about/

Advertising for ad-supported

The original page had a strong advertizing character which I mitigated a bit. It is still an important page, because the company's tools are used in a major number of ad supported installs alongside with downloads and mobile app installations.

If any content is wrong, e.g. about subsidiaries, it should be corrected; in a way that related companies/products, which are frequently distributed through IronSource tools, still appear in the text.

Removal of partner company links

I removed "partner" companies, for which a reference to the IronSource page was used as a source:

"ironSource partners with companies including Microsoft, Citrix, Spotify, Yandex, Baidu, Symantec, Audible, Opera, and others."

The linked IronSource page doesn't show these partners currently, and since IronSource products are used by several developers offering all kinds of freeware, it is not clear whether these companies deliberately cooperated with IronSource, or just had their products offered for download with IronSource tools by a third party, without any explicit agreement with IronSource or dedicated permission to offer through IronSource tools.

BBirke (talk) 15:37, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

References

Repeated vandalism on IronSource and related articles

There is still ongoing vandalism

BBirke (talk) 23:16, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Possible conflict of interest

I have tagged the page for a possible conflict of interest, as most recent material has been added by an SPA - Bluej0830 (talk · contribs) - Arjayay (talk) 16:06, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

I can look through it a bit and see what belongs and what doesn't. From a cursory glance, it already seems like there's info here that's totally unnecessary or non-notable. I just changed one thing already but there's a lot of refs. PersistentMix (talk) 00:03, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

I think I finished removing all irrelevant info so that the page is now from an NPOV. I removed the tag, anyone disagree? This is one of my first "more extensive" edits so I may have made mistakes. Cheers. PersistentMix (talk) 00:55, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

2020 scrub edits

Material has been scrubbed from a number of ironSource related articles, particularly when touching on their product InstallCore, and cited news articles which reported negative events. As cited material relevant to the company's history, I have restored it. Conflatuman (talk) 01:36, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

The page was facing vandalism using cited sites which are not relevant or used for blackhat SEO — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.139.108.49 (talk) 10:08, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Dear anonymous contributor, it is very rude to edit someone else's talk page comments. Especially when it introduces grammatical errors. I have restored my original comment, ie, mentioning InstallCore is an IronSource product, and has been for ten years, and restoring the phrase "negative events" rather than "info". The phrase "negative events" was already bending over backwards to maintain NPOV. For talk context, articles in Haaretz, Israel's longest-running newspaper, that report fraud (in this case click fraud) seem pretty well covered by negative events. Being classified as malware also seems like a negative event. The assertion citing a century-old newspaper and third-party virus scans is motivated by black-hat SEO, rather than just keeping a historical record, seems pretty rich, but if you have some evidence to back it up, this is the place to share it. Conflatuman (talk) 14:24, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

2021 scrub edits

Another round of anonymous edits removing any reference to malware, mention of click fraud, etc in the company's history and with still-current products, particularly InstallCore. I had my revert anonymously reverted, so putting a note here. Anon editors, by all means create an account and justify what you are doing, and add references. Why delete this relevant information? Giving a chance for engagement before removing again. Conflatuman (talk) 01:19, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Having not seen further responses here after several days, I have restored the deleted text referring to malware. Conflatuman (talk) 04:07, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

installCore no longer supported

I have just the latest round of information-removing edits, which follow the same pattern seen since 2015, ie, removal of information now embarrassing to the company around its original product being widely considered to be malware junk.

However, there was a new piece of information that it was "no longer supported" in this anonymous edit. As it was part of this abusive pattern of edits, and the citation was a wikipedia link with no relevant info, I deleted it with the rest. However! - this would be interesting and relevant information if it could be backed up with some sort of evidence. I did a quick search now just to check. Any editors with such information in hand are welcome to add it and cite it. That goes for regular editors with a user account, or anonymous SEO editors deeply engaged with this content for financial reasons, so long as you have a citation.

Conflatuman (talk) 22:31, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Please stop deleting my edit - you can visit the installcore web site and see that it's no longer available. I may not be as savvy as you in wikipedia - but I can read and do research I'm not affiliated with the company but I'm working for a company that develop desktop product and therefore know a lot about the industry - I've been reading your edits and they are bios both here and in the installcore section and they are very negative and bios. please try to be more accurate and objective — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.14.228.121 (talk) 16:08, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Dear anonymous editor. Welcome to wikipedia, the amazing online encyclopedia anyone can edit. Please do visit WP:PRIMER for advice on contributing. By all means bring your expertise to the encyclopedia so that everyone may benefit.

Do be aware that your recent edits to these pages haven't been terribly polite. Engaging only as an anonymous editor, rather than an identifiable user, with a history, doesn't give any context of your contributions to the community, and makes discussions to resolve problems difficult, since you aren't identifiable here or on a user page. Reverting edits that aren't spam or clearly erroneous, as you did to mine, is quite confrontational, rather that building on the work of other editors to improve the encyclopedia. Eg, one of my edits expanded the acronym PUA and linked it to an article on the term, Potentially Unwanted Application. The former is unclear for readers not familiar with the infosecurity domain. I would still argue these are worth restoring.

Removing discussion on talk pages (except for some offensive discussion) is also rude. Talk pages are where editors reach consensus, and get context on the history of the article. This is actually already mentioned on this talk page.

In addition, this page and some of the other pages related to it have a history of edits by anonymous editors which removed relevant information, had low-quality edits with poor grammar, and conflict of interest editing. Coming in straight with a revert as an anonymous editor associates you with this unfortunate history.

On the status of installCore: I have checked installcore.com as you suggest, and it does indeed state it no longer operates. As it was once the flagship product for this firm, perhaps you could share your expertise by adding this detail to the history. Do you know what year it happened? Was there any news article or press release? One of the editor guidelines is to avoid original research: WP:NOR.

Conflatuman (talk) 07:47, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Conflatuman If this installCore was once a flagship product of this company it would be best suited at the History section and not removed entirely from Wikipedia. I will create a sub section that will also link to installCore for further information. Was a conclusion reached on this discussion? DownTownRich (talk) 01:26, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi DownTownRich - I didn't get any further replies, here or elsewhere. New subsection sounds good to me. Conflatuman (talk) 05:37, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Whitewashed?

This page seems suspiciously sparse for a company with such a controversial history, shouldn't there be more discussion of their past dealing with mass-scale malware? It's pretty well-documented on other websites; e.g: https://www.benedelman.org/news-021815/ & https://blog.infostruction.com/2018/10/26/adware-empire-ironsource-and-installcore/

I have an ill feeling that they're trying to whitewash their past seeing as they seem to be aiming to merge/acquire other businesses in their current direction. 51.37.240.131 (talk) 18:28, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi, feel free to add historical detail with citations or reorganize for better emphasis. The page is periodically targeted by anonymous edits with a very upbeat attitude towards the firm. Conflatuman (talk) 18:49, 13 July 2022 (UTC)