Talk:ezboard

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

wiki policy[edit]

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)

Never mind, figured it out. [[User:Aranel|Aranel ("Sarah")]] 17:23, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

ezboard cracked - question[edit]

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)[reply]

[1] Well, "number of affected forums" = "all of them," at least. All hard data was attacked, and pretty much only the intact RAM data saved them from complete wipeout. Phoenix-forgotten 02:34, 2005 July 29 (UTC)

Substantial revision[edit]

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)

Turning the article into an attack piece doesn't fix the problem. Articles should not contain "spin" or any other bias; please respect WP:NPOV. If you have information which is verifiable, please add it and cite your sources per WP:CITE. Thanks, Alphax τεχ 06:08, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Lets stop the vandalism and bias[edit]

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)

There was no bias in what I was writing: all of it was supported by fact. It should be noted that RegimeMachine - who was applying a spin to the major data loss - is an employee of ezboard and is in coding the new Yuku platform. RichardHMorris 16:13, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. I find that a very interesting backpedaling statement from someone who wrote "It definately portrays EZBoard in a more positive light now." as a complaint. Oh, by the way, learn to spell. It's spelled "definitely". Thanks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.242.41.219 (talk)
Who are you talking to? RichardHMorris or Regimemachine? The comment you are referring to was unsigned, much like yours. However, in your case, a bot added your IP address. The comment you're referring to was left unsigned for months and I eventually added a comment to state that it was added by an unknown user. Regardless, I fail to see how your comment adds any value to this discussion when the last comment was back in March 2006. JamminBen 09:48, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. It wasn't one of mine. Someone should check their facts... RichardHMorris 18:01, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I feel the current version of this Wiki is fair enough. Regimemachine 10:34, 13 March 2006

Data about hack[edit]

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.


  • You can't say hundreds of thousands of ezboards lost information, thats not a provable fact. It was stated that approximately 9,000 boards lost some form of data, but its not stating what kind of data or how much.
  • Any source you can quote on that? The only statements known containing the number 9,000 are related to restore progress from a limited incomplete supply of (secondary) backups and it was clearly indicated by ezboard more boards were affected that were in need of other forms of restoring. If ezboard didn't want, or wasn't able to specify the damage further publicly, then this article surely shouldn't attempt to. --Furoria 16:29, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I see now the number was removed by you. Fine by me. --Furoria 16:44, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Colorful Language[edit]

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.

Note - the above was added by ezboard/regimemachine.
The public are indeed very interested in the facts and actual numbers but unfortunately ezboard has never released any documented or independently verifiable figures. If you look at the edit history, people on both sides of the fence have done likewise and it now appears that balance has been restored.
As to getting facts into the public domain, ezboard regularly take action against people who attempt to do so citing copyright/DMCA violation (whilst ignoring the fair use/comment/criticism defences).
Curiously, given the claim that the data loss was the result of a hack, no-one has ever claimed responsibility for the hack (which is very unlike h4x0rz) and given the claim that the FBI was brought in to investigate it, nothing more has been heard about apprehending the hacker. Given the nature of the data losses and network jumps that took place, the number of individuals capable of perpetrating a hack like this must have been few and far between. RichardHMorris 08:55, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure you know your fair share about "h4x0rz" but everything you just said is speculation and not fact. have a good day!

Notable Staff Members[edit]

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)[reply]

ezboard's Claimed Userbase[edit]

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)[reply]

Such claims are likely based on some statistical analysis performed by ezboard and is dependent on the quality of the measurement method and is more likely a number with commercial 'selling' value. In an encyclopedia they can never be asserted as fact without 3rd party references. The number therefore should really be removed or explained to be merely a claim from the company itself. And indeed Yuku and ezboard numbers shouldn't be conflated since that would a rather speculative assumption that customers would all migrate and no fluxuation would occur over the years. It then should be named 'by ezboard estimated future userbase' or something like that.Furoria 09:11, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's interesting to see how the anonymous ezboard staffer keeps trying to change the article to state that they're the biggest, despite other evidence to the contrary... RichardHMorris 10:48, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed the section that related to ezboard's revenue performance, Board of Directors and Advisory Board as ezboard has edited this page to remove the former and either remove or hide from public view the latter. RichardHMorris 08:01, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Agreed. That section relates back to some of the earlier edits where the claim was made in line with ezboard's own web site claims but altered later when their claimed userbase numbers were under those from other providers. The absence of any independent verifiable sources was the reason why the edits included the word 'claimed' RichardHMorris 12:50, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
as such, any reference to any claims of user base cannot to be substantiated as accurate by either company. Therefore references to both should be removed.
While it's true neither number can be seen as factual, ezboard's history of claiming to be the largest is quite substantiated and seemingly relevant for documenting its history, growth and any perception that the industry has of them. So while I'm glad it's removed from the first paragraph, the subject cannot just disappear altogether just because of lack of numbers measured by 3rd parties, otherwise we'll have to remove eg the paragraph about the hacking as well (because how can we know there was a hacking of any kind? There are only company statements of such). Let me think about a balanced paragraph about userbase claims, growth and size estimates. Any input welcome of course, as long as backed by sources Furoria 19:46, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
While it may document the history of the company, I can't see that it is entirely relevant to the article. It doesn't present a neutral point of view. Claims made in this ilk are never neutral; they always serve to show that party in it's best light. Therefore, to maintain integrity to this article and maintain neutrality claim references should be removed. Further, a company is allowed to change their marketing strategy. For instance, McDonalds may have at one time claimed to have served 10 million but those figures were simply marketing strategy and no one took them for fact. The issue of hacking "claims" is irrelevant as this article now states "cracking" not hacking and has removed any positive spin or negative slant. I think with regards to being balanced, there is never discussion when an item such as this appears in the article, but only when it is removed. I believe there is a policy in place at wikipedia to assume good faith. I think that needs to be upheld in this case and allow edits to happen without controversy with every edit. Some people are trying to spin the company in a positive light, some are trying to spit it negative. It might be possible that you've lost your own neutrality when it comes to this topic as well and may do well to step aside. Freneti 20:51, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Following your logic the MacDonald's article should be edited as well to remove the first sentence "one of the world's largest..." and "...largest international fast food franchise". Actually that article is full of numbers and statistics eg from "McDonald's Area Management Guide". In the same way ezboard was firmly established as a major player in size and traffic since 1999-2000, and should have a section dealing about figures, size and usage, as far as available from the many ezboard statements about it and perhaps 3rdparty sources (like e.g. Alexa). This is an important part of balanced represention of ezboard's history and ezboard's relative importance to the online community world. This is harldy a NPOV issue at all. Your statement about "only discussion when an item as this is removed" seems very weak and hardly relevant unless you have been editing hundreds of articles like these. About losing my own neutrality: it's not that important since nobody "has" neutrality. The ideal of neutrality in this case is established in the possible result of open discussion and some form of group consensus, not in one single person's views. Furoria 22:24, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think the use of the term 'claimed' is relevant here: ezboard, Inc. has been claiming to be the largest provider of message for a while now and unlike the Calsberg "probably the best lager in the world" marketing line, it's meant as a tongue in cheek claim. The fact that ezboard claim to be so does not make it so but might have relevance to a discussion about the company. RichardHMorris 22:32, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Most companies keep their user base numbers quite secure and only release a generic number other than to those with a vested interest in the company. Why would ezboard need to, or want to, release numbers such as those? I think you're expecting too much on this. This isn't an investor report, this is a wikipedia article. The article states what ezboard is. The article states what ezboard is used for. The article states where ezboard has been. The article states where ezboard is going. Why keep pushing this matter? Freneti 18:55, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
ezboard claims that they are "the largest online community network site on the planet" and quoted unsubstantiated user figures at the launch of Yuku in September 2005. That's all just advertising puff, of course, but if you look at the editing logs, that particular claim has been repeated here by ezboard staff on a number of occasions which is why it's still a live issue and is very much concerned wih "what ezboard is" especially if they are what they claim to be. If people don't know scale, they don't know how much of a player ezboard may or may not be; a bit like saying that Microsoft writes and sells software would be understating their importance. RichardHMorris 19:08, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So if we all know it's "advertising puff" why keep it in there? Why perpetuate a myth that ezboard has created? If the only real aim to keep it in the article is to call out ezboard as liars then this is hardly the forum for that. Freneti 19:41, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Editors please discuss significant changes first[edit]

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)[reply]

New Article?[edit]

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)[reply]

The "battleground" usually consists of someone deleting the entire "ezboard cracked" section and someone reinstating it shortly afterwards. If this became a separate page it might reduce the number of edits on the main ezboard page but the new "ezboard cracked" page might just be flagged for deletion, which IMHO is more of a hassle than reversing changes. I don't believe it is worth creating additional pages for ezboard, particularly for the "ezboard cracked" incident, as there is a lack of concrete information, and anything that was posted was deleted long ago. Some ezboard admins copied the announcements to their boards but these are spread across a lot of different boards and I don't know if we can cite sources that are cut-and-paste jobs from a deleted original. Yes people have a right to know, but in the absence of any references to the original postings, is there a lot more information that can be put on Wikipedia than is already there? Suggestions welcome... JamminBen 13:08, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I suppose you're right, it just seems kinda silly to keep coming and trying to change what the article says, especially the ez/yuku staff, you'd think they'd be far to busy with sorting out yuku and all other related stuff (helping confused/worried users through the transition from ezboard to yuku, for example) than constantly trying to make both ezboard and yuku look like shining beacons of divine perfection, especially when so many people know that's not true and aren't going to let the ezboard and yuku articles be edited in such a way as to both provide false/inaccurate information and spam their services. That's not what the articles are supoosed to be for, as Wiki's policies clearly state and users have constantly pointed out aswell. Lord Yaksha 13:30, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with JamminBen, I had the same doubts about a separate article becoming mostly speculative, although there appears to be a lot more to say about the topic than is stated now. We'll just have to wait for the official auto-biography of Vanchau so we can quote from there :) ... Anyway, good to see more people keeping an eye out here, this way I think attempts to delete the crack section again will not go unnoticed that easily. This struggle is quite normal for many WP articles containing some disputed or sensitive material so it comes with the territory I guess. As noted already before on this page I'd like to have a section about the actual size of ezboard, history, claims and realities, but same problem here: where to get neutral information? For sure they were market leader for hosted boards once and for sure they stopped being that one or two years ago. I think it's very relevant for a complete description of ezboard to add somewhere in the article in the future. Furoria 12:18, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well I seriously doubt ezboard will release that info, or any other info that would show them as less than perfect or being anywhere other than on top of all the competition, even though it's plain as day to anybody that is not so. A seperate article could be run, but only if a person with a genuinely nutral point of view were running it. But that person would be contending with constant attempts to remove all of the info, that and most of the info was on ezboard and has been conveniently deleted or hidden from public view. Lord Yaksha 10:49, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Judging by the edit history on the ezboard page (and many other pages for that matter) there are several people who keep the page neutral, not just one. I wouldn't say there are "constant attempts" to remove information, it seems to have calmed down a bit recently. I turned to web.archive.org for historical information about the May 31st 2005 "incident" and found nothing at all. The web archives only go back to 2005 for ezboard. The ones with the appropriate forum threw up a page not found error when I tried to access it. I tried them all, and got nothing. This may suggest that the archives have recently been purged, or that ezboard has asked for certain archives to be deleted. For me the web archives were a last resort, so I don't have any more ideas for sourcing this information without trawling through a lot of very similar news articles. JamminBen 14:02, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's 2015 and everything relating to the hack has been completely whitewashed. Adding NPOV tag and reinstating the censorship content. Feldon23 (talk) 14:31, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

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)[reply]

  • Removed "surprising" since I put it there. It was meant as 'unusual' but this sentiment cannot be traced clearly down to a source, not in those words or any specifics anyway. It's not important for the history and Cincom's later comments on it are enough on the subject. Thanks JB for the upkeep Furoria 08:31, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the revised wording is better. Generally speaking this page is very low on content that would make the use of the advert tag valid, so I really don't know why the tag was added. I don't understand why we have to keep justifying the existence of a page that has already been justified several times. JamminBen 08:42, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I tidied up the Talk page[edit]

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)[reply]

Removed cleanup icon[edit]

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)[reply]

The entire article has been gutted. NPOV, Advertisement, and other flags are completely relevant. Trudging back through historical versions to 2006 would be incredibly time-consuming but may be necessary. The 2005 destruction of tens of thousands of EZBoard forums DID happen. I was a participant in two forums that lost nearly their entire post history. Also, let's stop pretending this was an outside hacker. The attack affected primary AND backup systems which were stored separately. The person who did the damage was too familiar with the systems. Finally, there have been plenty of facts which came out after the fact about hiring practices at EZBoard and extremely unprofessional employees. This was done by disgruntled employees. Feldon23 (talk) 18:25, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

System Size[edit]

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)[reply]

Yuku[edit]

EzBoard has now switched all its boards to Yuku, and ezBoard now goes to Yuku.--real_decimic 12:08, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unverified edits 2010[edit]

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)[reply]

Along these lines, I took out the part that claimed many people think there never was a hack. Without a citation, that has to go.. it accuses Ezboard of serious criminal activity. Kansan (talk) 18:58, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Stop whitewashing the article. It will not be possible to find journalistic sources for what happened at EZBoard because everything was hushed up. This is NO WAY this was an outside hacker. I'm sorry you weren't there to read all the misleading and fraudulent statements by EZBoard staff during the time of the attack. Unfortunately all this information has been lost to the internet and all that's left is for disinterested editors to take a wrecking ball through crucial information. Feldon23 (talk) 18:31, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

History block needs to remain neutral, complete and relevant[edit]

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)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

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:

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).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:29, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ezboard&oldid=1199422453"