Talk:Ringo.com

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

"It is an active site always updating or creating new features for their members." - didn't like that (POV worries) so have removed it. --VivaEmilyDavies 03:03, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] privacy issues?

Where did the privacy issues go? Weren't there privacy problems with ringo?

A: they're back in now.

Explain or state your sources --Ablaze (talk) 15:52, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
Heres a few: [1] [2] [3] Shogun 14:12, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
All examples you gave were over a year old. I think they have their act together now! --Ablaze (talk) 17:51, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
I came to this entry after receiving one of the Ringo invites recently, it did strike me as a little odd for it to ask me for the password of my gmail account (no i didn't submit it).. Shogun 00:59, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm the same as the above...yet now the entry doesn't tell the full story.
Same here. Asking for my password and fake emails, really anoying.
If only you were willing to sign your name eh? --Ablaze (talk) 23:50, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Scam?

  • The website ask for my email password.
  • I receive emails related to ringo from friends (as the emails adresse say so) that were NOT sent by my friends themself

The question I am asking myself is wheter or not Ablaze is working for ringo. Because obviously Ringo is scam, and the user Ablaze keep deleting every content made about it.

[edit] Reversions

I have reverted the text back to how it was with the blog evidence that Ringo.com harvests and spams email addresses. Obviously we are unlikely to see more authoritative sources than weblogs covering this because it simply isn't newsworthy. However, that doesn't mean that the evidence that is available is not believable. Readers can make up their own mind as to the persuasive weight of the weblog sources, and the text as is provides a degree of triangulation. --203.219.227.6 16:36, July 19, 2006 (UTC)

Blogs and forum posts are not reliable sources suitable for citations on Wikipedia. Having many of them doesn't change that. They're unchecked opinion no different than directly asserting such things on the page.
I think if there was strong evidence to support the idea that they're a blatant spam scam, we would see more authorative sources for citations, given that according to Alexa they're larger than many other photo-sharing/hosting sites, as well as owned by Monster. If it was a scam site, that'd likely be newsworthy.
I've added a paragraph on Ringo's methods including how they invite users to provide the login info to email accounts.
P.S. Everyone please sign your comments! --Battlehamster 03:34, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
An elegant solution, to be sure, Battlehamster. Well done. :) --203.219.227.6 11:52, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/i/n/Talk%7ERingo.com_c1f0.html"