When adding new items to this talk page please use the "+" link at the top. This will ensure that the items are added to the bottom, which keeps them in chronological order. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
What is the policy when you have an article that cannot be placed at the correct name? It's ezboard, not Ezboard, EZBoard, EZboard, or anything with any capital letters at all. The official name of the company is "ezboard, Inc.". [[User:Aranel| Aranel (" Sarah")]] 17:16, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Is there an information source about the attacks, their scope, the number of affected forums, and if possible how to get hold of the people who aggravated hundreds of thousands of people for fun? --
Kizor 08:23, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
Someone recently rewrote most of the article. It definitely portrays EZBoard in a more positive light now. I'd venture to say that it also isn't very well written. (The second "paragraph" is just a run on sentance.) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Starwed ( talk • contribs) 10:32, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
I agree: the truth about the extent of the major data loss is well known and even acknowledged by ezboard, Inc. Most of the ezboards, active as well as inactive, lost substantial amounts of data. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by RichardHMorris ( talk • contribs) 23:58, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
Hi Alphax, I've cited the sources that I referenced in the document. I did not add the 99.95% uptime claim, I assume that was ezboard's employee. RichardHMorris 16:12, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
There are a number of references to the extent of the data loss and the failure to restore data as well as the failure to sort the topic threads back in order in ezboard's help forums, but the announcements were moved around and/or achived by ezboard's staff. RichardHMorris 16:12, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Ok RichardHMorris we get it. You dont like ezboard. Find something better to do with your time. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Regimemachine ( talk • contribs)
I feel the current version of this Wiki is fair enough. Regimemachine 10:34, 13 March 2006
The current phrase in the article: "... causing over 9,000 boards to lose information" does not reflect the history as publicly known, or is too misleading about the scale. The only official announcements to the public, relevant to this issue, were:
1. "This attack resulted in the loss of a significant amount of current and historical board postings and interrupted services across all systems"
2. "We are taking the fastest route to restore data, but it may take up to 48 hours to get data back to approximately 9,000 boards. A more manual method requiring upwards of seven to ten days is required to restore data to the other boards that lost data"
3. "We would love to send you a list of which boards are getting what data restored, but it is not information that can be generated at this time."
4. "... have reports of a great many boards getting significant amounts of data back"
(Source of above not online available anymore to my knowing apart from a blacklisted host. There goes free speech...)
Fact is that Ezboard contained around May 2005 at least several hundreds of thousands of communities ( source). Combined with announcement #1 which to my knowing never was further specified or retracted later, the article should then read: "causing over hundreds of thousands communities to lose information". Precise statistics of amounts of posts across the Ezboard network have never been published so it might well be that the amount of damage done can never be accurately estimated at all.
Any comments or additional information is welcome.
Please discontinue using colorful language to describe data loss. If you cannot support the claim of "many" "few" "most" then please do not use the terms. The public is more interested in actual numbers, over any party attempting to put a spin on things. Be accurate and factual, and stop using descriptive text to attempt to bend Facts in your favor. Thanks.
Removed a lot of staff member names and usernames. A lot of these staff members are not currently employed with ezboard at this time, and the only actual notable staff members are Robert Labatt and Ceco Gakovic as noted on the ezboard website. --Regimemachine
-- Good point. I suppose I was trying to add more historical names and was counting on someone to put their roles. Since you edit the page quite a lot, perhaps you want to do that? -- M.A. Walters 11:06, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Talking of things being "accurate and factual", the article currently repeats a claim from ezboard that it has 13 million users. On ezboard's own site they claim "over 10 million active members" but I can't actually find a direct quote from the company where that 13-million-user claim is made. If you look at the advertising blurb about ezboard on DEMOfall you'll see they erroneously claim 14 million registered users of Yuku even before it was launched!
Another issue - apart from the usual message board user churn rates - are the multiple user accounts registered by individual users, including ezboard, Inc.'s own staff/help forum moderators. RichardHMorris 10:32, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
I'd like to suggest to discuss the claimed size of ezboard's network in a seperate section in the article and leave it out of the introduction sentences. It's a larger topic which shouldn't be in the heading of the article as it needs some further explanation and sourcing IMO. Furoria 12:37, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Of course, given that ezboard adds Google Analytics tracking code to every single page served throughout its network and given that Google Analytics give extremely details visitor information in terms of visitor numbers, visitor location, ISP, repeat or new visits, pages served, etc. then it would be very simple for them to give access to an independent verifier or even to the editors here to be able to add and verify any claimed userbase. Those figures would probably be the most accurate as other than a possibly small number of users who might 'adblock' Google Analytics or redirect them through their Windows HOSTS file to localhost, they do not rely on user-added toolbar add-ons. RichardHMorris 09:40, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Why is it that some people (like 'RLabatt', is that the CEO of ezboard? Same name...) feel the need to keep erasing lots of text from this article without comment? First in May, then the 25th and now today again? Wikipedia is not about putting ones view in without allowing other voices. It's *not* about deleting and removing historical facts out of view.
Anyone who feels like things have to be substantially moved, removed or changed, can't it be discussed here like adults? There are many ways to phrase and source statements. Not talking about people like "Frankbanner" who just added a stray line full of frustration. It's clear such things do not belong here and anyone can remove those. Thanks in advance, Furoria 12:21, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
I was thinking that maybe a new article should be created to display info about the claimed hack in 2005, and any other topics (like Yuku's apparent ad revenue sharing) and the fact that the 2005 hack is a litle too similar to the incident in 2001 when an update caused massive data loss. Just stick a link to it in the ezboard and yuku articles. I think it's a fair article to create, their are bound to be people who would want to know about the hack and other issues regarding ezboard and Yuku, and they have a right to know, so why not give them a place to find it all out? This would also mean that the ezboard/yuku staff can add their opinions etc without turning the ezboard and yuku articles into battlegrounds. Lord Yaksha 10:05, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
I noticed that TV-VCR added an "advert" tag to this page. I have removed this. A great deal of effort has been put into making this page neutral. There may be parts of it that could be improved further - for instance the "surprising" comment in the technology section - but by and large this is a very balanced article and has been discussed extensively. If anyone wishes to highlight specific sections for modification then feel free. But this is certainly not an advertisement. I should know, as I wrote most of the history section (for instance) and I am not ezboard staff. JamminBen 05:01, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
The entries were all over the place, so I have reordered them. Please add all new Talk sections to the bottom of the page by using the "+" link that appears at the top. It makes this page a lot easier to follow because we can see what's new. Thank you. JamminBen 08:52, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
I removed the cleanup icon. This was added by an anonymous user and they have not contributed anything else. As I mentioned when removing the advertisement tag, a lot of work has been done on this page and without specific examples (or actually making changes instead of adding a tag) I don't see what needs changing. It would be nice if people could actually try and add some value to the page instead of adding icons that aren't given any explanation. JamminBen 00:38, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Does anyone know how many machines host this service? It would be intersting to know how many forums or how many servers per machine the software supports. DonPMitchell ( talk) 16:30, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
EzBoard has now switched all its boards to Yuku, and ezBoard now goes to Yuku.-- real _ decimic 12:08, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Since I noticed many additions of clearly unsourced opinions in the article, which are impossible to verify, I removed most of them since the topic had already ad nauseum been covered before. I urge people to read the discussion here above since it's a recurring problem with certain former employees. If you want to bring 'your truth' out, just publish something in a notable publication somewhere else first! And get some grip on Wikipedia rules too before editing. Perhaps some more needs to be removed for lack of sourcing but I only checked recent months. -- Furoria ( talk) 20:37, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
The main event of Ezboard's history appears to have not survived the edits while it's one of the few informational bits on this page with actual sources available, not to mention the large impact it had on hundreds of thousand of people that year. Since not much is stated officially or verifiable on the exact scale or cause, or if the case has ever been solved, the entry has IMO to remain brief. The original founder and architect Vanchau Nguyen appears to have offered his alternative version in older edits but this cannot be verified independently. Furoria ( talk) 11:08, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 7 external links on Ezboard. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://p094.ezboard.com/fezboardfrm29.showMessage?topicID=407.topic{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://p094.ezboard.com/fezboardfrm29.showMessage?topicID=911.topic{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://p094.ezboard.com/fezboardfrm29.showMessage?topicID=914.topic{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://p094.ezboard.com/fezboardfrm29.showMessage?topicID=930.topic{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://p094.ezboard.com/fezboardfrm29.showMessage?topicID=968.topic{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://p094.ezboard.com/fezboardfrm29.showMessage?topicID=1485.topic{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://p094.ezboard.com/fezboardfrm29.showMessage?topicID=990.topic{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://p094.ezboard.com/fezboardfrm29.showMessage?topicID=1133.topic{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://p080.ezboard.com/fezboardfrm29.showMessage?topicID=1317.topic{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://p080.ezboard.com/fezboardfrm29.showMessage?topicID=1395.topic{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://p080.ezboard.com/fezboardfrm29.showMessage?topicID=1398.topic{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://p080.ezboard.com/fezboardfrm29.showMessage?topicID=1405.topic{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://p080.ezboard.com/fezboardfrm29.showMessage?topicID=1439.topic{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://p080.ezboard.com/fezboardfrm29.showMessage?topicID=1437.topic{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://p080.ezboard.com/fezboardfrm29.showMessage?topicID=1634.topic{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.ezboard.com/When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 15:29, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
When adding new items to this talk page please use the "+" link at the top. This will ensure that the items are added to the bottom, which keeps them in chronological order. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
What is the policy when you have an article that cannot be placed at the correct name? It's ezboard, not Ezboard, EZBoard, EZboard, or anything with any capital letters at all. The official name of the company is "ezboard, Inc.". [[User:Aranel| Aranel (" Sarah")]] 17:16, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Is there an information source about the attacks, their scope, the number of affected forums, and if possible how to get hold of the people who aggravated hundreds of thousands of people for fun? --
Kizor 08:23, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
Someone recently rewrote most of the article. It definitely portrays EZBoard in a more positive light now. I'd venture to say that it also isn't very well written. (The second "paragraph" is just a run on sentance.) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Starwed ( talk • contribs) 10:32, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
I agree: the truth about the extent of the major data loss is well known and even acknowledged by ezboard, Inc. Most of the ezboards, active as well as inactive, lost substantial amounts of data. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by RichardHMorris ( talk • contribs) 23:58, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
Hi Alphax, I've cited the sources that I referenced in the document. I did not add the 99.95% uptime claim, I assume that was ezboard's employee. RichardHMorris 16:12, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
There are a number of references to the extent of the data loss and the failure to restore data as well as the failure to sort the topic threads back in order in ezboard's help forums, but the announcements were moved around and/or achived by ezboard's staff. RichardHMorris 16:12, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Ok RichardHMorris we get it. You dont like ezboard. Find something better to do with your time. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Regimemachine ( talk • contribs)
I feel the current version of this Wiki is fair enough. Regimemachine 10:34, 13 March 2006
The current phrase in the article: "... causing over 9,000 boards to lose information" does not reflect the history as publicly known, or is too misleading about the scale. The only official announcements to the public, relevant to this issue, were:
1. "This attack resulted in the loss of a significant amount of current and historical board postings and interrupted services across all systems"
2. "We are taking the fastest route to restore data, but it may take up to 48 hours to get data back to approximately 9,000 boards. A more manual method requiring upwards of seven to ten days is required to restore data to the other boards that lost data"
3. "We would love to send you a list of which boards are getting what data restored, but it is not information that can be generated at this time."
4. "... have reports of a great many boards getting significant amounts of data back"
(Source of above not online available anymore to my knowing apart from a blacklisted host. There goes free speech...)
Fact is that Ezboard contained around May 2005 at least several hundreds of thousands of communities ( source). Combined with announcement #1 which to my knowing never was further specified or retracted later, the article should then read: "causing over hundreds of thousands communities to lose information". Precise statistics of amounts of posts across the Ezboard network have never been published so it might well be that the amount of damage done can never be accurately estimated at all.
Any comments or additional information is welcome.
Please discontinue using colorful language to describe data loss. If you cannot support the claim of "many" "few" "most" then please do not use the terms. The public is more interested in actual numbers, over any party attempting to put a spin on things. Be accurate and factual, and stop using descriptive text to attempt to bend Facts in your favor. Thanks.
Removed a lot of staff member names and usernames. A lot of these staff members are not currently employed with ezboard at this time, and the only actual notable staff members are Robert Labatt and Ceco Gakovic as noted on the ezboard website. --Regimemachine
-- Good point. I suppose I was trying to add more historical names and was counting on someone to put their roles. Since you edit the page quite a lot, perhaps you want to do that? -- M.A. Walters 11:06, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Talking of things being "accurate and factual", the article currently repeats a claim from ezboard that it has 13 million users. On ezboard's own site they claim "over 10 million active members" but I can't actually find a direct quote from the company where that 13-million-user claim is made. If you look at the advertising blurb about ezboard on DEMOfall you'll see they erroneously claim 14 million registered users of Yuku even before it was launched!
Another issue - apart from the usual message board user churn rates - are the multiple user accounts registered by individual users, including ezboard, Inc.'s own staff/help forum moderators. RichardHMorris 10:32, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
I'd like to suggest to discuss the claimed size of ezboard's network in a seperate section in the article and leave it out of the introduction sentences. It's a larger topic which shouldn't be in the heading of the article as it needs some further explanation and sourcing IMO. Furoria 12:37, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Of course, given that ezboard adds Google Analytics tracking code to every single page served throughout its network and given that Google Analytics give extremely details visitor information in terms of visitor numbers, visitor location, ISP, repeat or new visits, pages served, etc. then it would be very simple for them to give access to an independent verifier or even to the editors here to be able to add and verify any claimed userbase. Those figures would probably be the most accurate as other than a possibly small number of users who might 'adblock' Google Analytics or redirect them through their Windows HOSTS file to localhost, they do not rely on user-added toolbar add-ons. RichardHMorris 09:40, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Why is it that some people (like 'RLabatt', is that the CEO of ezboard? Same name...) feel the need to keep erasing lots of text from this article without comment? First in May, then the 25th and now today again? Wikipedia is not about putting ones view in without allowing other voices. It's *not* about deleting and removing historical facts out of view.
Anyone who feels like things have to be substantially moved, removed or changed, can't it be discussed here like adults? There are many ways to phrase and source statements. Not talking about people like "Frankbanner" who just added a stray line full of frustration. It's clear such things do not belong here and anyone can remove those. Thanks in advance, Furoria 12:21, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
I was thinking that maybe a new article should be created to display info about the claimed hack in 2005, and any other topics (like Yuku's apparent ad revenue sharing) and the fact that the 2005 hack is a litle too similar to the incident in 2001 when an update caused massive data loss. Just stick a link to it in the ezboard and yuku articles. I think it's a fair article to create, their are bound to be people who would want to know about the hack and other issues regarding ezboard and Yuku, and they have a right to know, so why not give them a place to find it all out? This would also mean that the ezboard/yuku staff can add their opinions etc without turning the ezboard and yuku articles into battlegrounds. Lord Yaksha 10:05, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
I noticed that TV-VCR added an "advert" tag to this page. I have removed this. A great deal of effort has been put into making this page neutral. There may be parts of it that could be improved further - for instance the "surprising" comment in the technology section - but by and large this is a very balanced article and has been discussed extensively. If anyone wishes to highlight specific sections for modification then feel free. But this is certainly not an advertisement. I should know, as I wrote most of the history section (for instance) and I am not ezboard staff. JamminBen 05:01, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
The entries were all over the place, so I have reordered them. Please add all new Talk sections to the bottom of the page by using the "+" link that appears at the top. It makes this page a lot easier to follow because we can see what's new. Thank you. JamminBen 08:52, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
I removed the cleanup icon. This was added by an anonymous user and they have not contributed anything else. As I mentioned when removing the advertisement tag, a lot of work has been done on this page and without specific examples (or actually making changes instead of adding a tag) I don't see what needs changing. It would be nice if people could actually try and add some value to the page instead of adding icons that aren't given any explanation. JamminBen 00:38, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Does anyone know how many machines host this service? It would be intersting to know how many forums or how many servers per machine the software supports. DonPMitchell ( talk) 16:30, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
EzBoard has now switched all its boards to Yuku, and ezBoard now goes to Yuku.-- real _ decimic 12:08, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Since I noticed many additions of clearly unsourced opinions in the article, which are impossible to verify, I removed most of them since the topic had already ad nauseum been covered before. I urge people to read the discussion here above since it's a recurring problem with certain former employees. If you want to bring 'your truth' out, just publish something in a notable publication somewhere else first! And get some grip on Wikipedia rules too before editing. Perhaps some more needs to be removed for lack of sourcing but I only checked recent months. -- Furoria ( talk) 20:37, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
The main event of Ezboard's history appears to have not survived the edits while it's one of the few informational bits on this page with actual sources available, not to mention the large impact it had on hundreds of thousand of people that year. Since not much is stated officially or verifiable on the exact scale or cause, or if the case has ever been solved, the entry has IMO to remain brief. The original founder and architect Vanchau Nguyen appears to have offered his alternative version in older edits but this cannot be verified independently. Furoria ( talk) 11:08, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 7 external links on Ezboard. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://p094.ezboard.com/fezboardfrm29.showMessage?topicID=407.topic{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://p094.ezboard.com/fezboardfrm29.showMessage?topicID=911.topic{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://p094.ezboard.com/fezboardfrm29.showMessage?topicID=914.topic{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://p094.ezboard.com/fezboardfrm29.showMessage?topicID=930.topic{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://p094.ezboard.com/fezboardfrm29.showMessage?topicID=968.topic{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://p094.ezboard.com/fezboardfrm29.showMessage?topicID=1485.topic{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://p094.ezboard.com/fezboardfrm29.showMessage?topicID=990.topic{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://p094.ezboard.com/fezboardfrm29.showMessage?topicID=1133.topic{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://p080.ezboard.com/fezboardfrm29.showMessage?topicID=1317.topic{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://p080.ezboard.com/fezboardfrm29.showMessage?topicID=1395.topic{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://p080.ezboard.com/fezboardfrm29.showMessage?topicID=1398.topic{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://p080.ezboard.com/fezboardfrm29.showMessage?topicID=1405.topic{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://p080.ezboard.com/fezboardfrm29.showMessage?topicID=1439.topic{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://p080.ezboard.com/fezboardfrm29.showMessage?topicID=1437.topic{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://p080.ezboard.com/fezboardfrm29.showMessage?topicID=1634.topic{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.ezboard.com/When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 15:29, 11 December 2017 (UTC)