A little off-topic subject but we like our users to stay in touch on what's going on behind the scenes at our company.
It is sad news to inform that one more time one person vandalized AirNav RadarBox at Wikipedia posting false information and links to an internet forum which is well known to have closed connections with our competitors.
Since the start of this project many tactics have been used to try to damage the image of AirNav RadarBox:
- Creating blogs mentioning false RadarBox facts
- Creating scripts to try to raise the number of views of topics on our forum created to report negative and most of the times false facts (to raise their position on search engines)
- Creating an internet forum which claims to be independent but where all these people change messages on a daily basis reporting false facts, asking for personal identification for anyone to post (passport, IDs) and banning any user that reports anything positive related to RadarBox (we've even emailed directly the administrators of this forum regarding false/outdated sticky posts reporting outdated RadarBox false facts and nothing was done).
- Adding to this a totally biased/false product comparison document has been created by one of the administrators mentioned above which is well known for being closely connected with RadarBox competitors, participating in their meetings and being one of the top posters of their forum.
To all our thousands of users and dealers we would like to clarify that we are here to grow, to develop, to innovate and not to participate in this kind of games.
Quote from: AirNav Development on April 12, 2010, 09:47:58 PM
A little off-topic subject but we like our users to stay in touch on what's going on behind the scenes at our company.
It is sad news to inform that one more time one person vandalized AirNav RadarBox at Wikipedia posting false information and links to an internet forum which is well known to have closed connections with our competitors.
Since the start of this project many tactics have been used to try to damage the image of AirNav RadarBox:
- Creating blogs mentioning false RadarBox facts
- Creating scripts to try to raise the number of views of topics on our forum created to report negative and most of the times false facts (to raise their position on search engines)
- Creating an internet forum which claims to be independent but where all these people change messages on a daily basis reporting false facts, asking for personal identification for anyone to post (passport, IDs) and banning any user that reports anything positive related to RadarBox (we've even emailed directly the administrators of this forum regarding false/outdated sticky posts reporting outdated RadarBox false facts and nothing was done).
- Adding to this a totally biased/false product comparison document has been created by one of the administrators mentioned above which is well known for being closely connected with RadarBox competitors, participating in their meetings and being one of the top posters of their forum.
To all our thousands of users and dealers we would like to clarify that we are here to grow, to develop, to innovate and not to participate in this kind of games.
Hi.AirNav
Very childish attitude by the usual clientele, you do not need to be a brain surgeon to work out who it was, just proves the better airnav gets the more it annoys them.
all the best from pat.
Quote from: AirNav Development on April 12, 2010, 09:47:58 PMIt is sad news to inform that one more time one person vandalized AirNav RadarBox at Wikipedia posting false information and links to an internet forum which is well known to have closed connections with our competitors.
One of the great things about Wikipedia is that it allows all updates made to pages to be tracked and compared.
Leaving aside the issue of a link which may or not be "inappropriate" (depending arguably on the reader's point of view), it would appear that the "false information" being referred to (and now "corrected") was the statement:
"The Radarbox comes with an optional upgrade to a 3D feature (not free), obtainable on CD-ROM or via the Airnav systems website."
Could we be told what is wrong with that statement, please ?
See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=AirNav_Systems_RadarBox&diff=next&oldid=355595371
We will not start a discussion here about this as the forum members are not interested in this kind of topics. It interesting, however, that you didn't comment the other items listed on our topic.
Send me a PM if you are interested in an answer.
Why all this ........ I dont think you can beat the ANRB. End of story. Now let us all get back to improving what we have not argue about it!! Colin.
Quote from: DaveReid on April 12, 2010, 10:36:01 PM
Quote from: AirNav Development on April 12, 2010, 09:47:58 PMIt is sad news to inform that one more time one person vandalized AirNav RadarBox at Wikipedia posting false information and links to an internet forum which is well known to have closed connections with our competitors.
One of the great things about Wikipedia is that it allows all updates made to pages to be tracked and compared.
Leaving aside the issue of a link which may or not be "inappropriate" (depending arguably on the reader's point of view), it would appear that the "false information" being referred to (and now "corrected") was the statement:
"The Radarbox comes with an optional upgrade to a 3D feature (not free), obtainable on CD-ROM or via the Airnav systems website."
Could we be told what is wrong with that statement, please ?
See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=AirNav_Systems_RadarBox&diff=next&oldid=355595371
DNFTT.
FROM PAT
Quote from: sniper on April 13, 2010, 07:16:05 AMDNFTT.
FROM PAT
Quite right, Pat, I couldn't agree more, we shouldn't be encouraging these histrionic, sensationalist posts :-)
Quote from: AirNav Development on April 12, 2010, 09:47:58 PM
To all our thousands of users and dealers we would like to clarify that we are here to grow, to develop, to innovate and not to participate in this kind of games.
If the above stated is not just a promotion line (?) then act as adults.
That childish calling as they (RS) did it again without showing evidents is meaningless to me!
Anybody who has monitored the RadarBox Wiki entry over the last 18 months would know exactly what has been going on. As we're all RB users, there would be little need for us to look at it. However, those considering purchasing a Mode S receiver would probably take the Wiki entry at face value - that's the problem with an 'open source' encyclopedia and why professional journalists are 'banned' from quoting from it - lol
Quote from: Allocator on April 13, 2010, 10:01:11 AM
Anybody who has monitored the RadarBox Wiki entry over the last 18 months would know exactly what has been going on.
It appears to have been "vandalised" again!
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=AirNav_Systems_RadarBox&diff=next&oldid=355653826
Airnav......Ignore, pay no attention, take no notice, close your eyes, pay no heed, disregard. Don't allow yourselves to be deflected from your purpose.
Golden rules of business - never mention your competition or detractors and never let them set your agenda.
Heads down guys and get on with the job.
Very Sad.
The fact that this kind of topic makes its way onto the forums rather than be dealt with in private.
I for one who used to be a SBS-1 users and switched to RB because at the time (so have no main feeling either way) I liked the RB interface, would much prefer these topics not to make it into the forums.
What I am interested on reading in here is how RB is being developed and what improvements are being worked on and we can expect soon.
If some people claim there are issues with RB and there maybe valid reasons, then one of the best ways to address is with facts either way or explain if the issue is known and being worked on.
Some of the claims above (original post) if true should be supported with full evidence or not be posted. (I'd prefer not posted)
Quote from: pjm on April 13, 2010, 10:14:45 AM
Quote from: Allocator on April 13, 2010, 10:01:11 AM
Anybody who has monitored the RadarBox Wiki entry over the last 18 months would know exactly what has been going on.
It appears to have been "vandalised" again!
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=AirNav_Systems_RadarBox&diff=next&oldid=355653826
Yes, very tiresome.
It would appear that some people have little else to do other than attempt to attract people to a site that takes every opportunity to criticize AirNav, quote posts from this forum out of context and make personal attacks on individuals - I feature there quite often and I'm not a member of the forum - how does that work!!!!!!
Quote from: pjm on April 13, 2010, 10:14:45 AMIt appears to have been "vandalised" again!
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=AirNav_Systems_RadarBox&diff=next&oldid=355653826
I agree, it would appear that the net result of AirNav's post is that the world appears to have declared open season on the Wikipedia page.
The last few edits seem to be a very crude attempt to fit-up both Rod Bearden and the Radarspotters folks by posting under their names/handles. Neither of them would be that stupid, would they ?
Just to answer DaveG's post.
The evidence of those points has been mentioned before on our forum (details of money being exchanged/products and then being denied, blogs have been closed which contained libellous information, spam marketing on the forum, lies in comparison documents) and we have also passed certain evidence to those being caught to put an end to certain activities. This is not "hot air", we have enough evidence and posted it before.
We also have nothing to hide, if a customer has a request or an issue they are having we have no issue with it being mentioned on the forum. In fact we have a bug list page (link below) to show how open we are:
http://www.airnavsystems.com/bugs/
These and other attacks are simply to do with trying to damage the reputation of AirNav Systems in any way possible.
Quote from: AirNav Support on April 13, 2010, 11:11:42 AM
These and other attacks are simply to do with trying to damage the reputation of AirNav Systems in any way possible.
Thanks for reply, still have loads of post to catch-up on (over years worth) but your last para is my point, if its attack on Airnav in anyway there must be better action that can be taken in private, maybe via lawyers.
Full credit in the idea of not hiding anything from customers and allowing bugs, feature requests etc to be discussed in open forum.
On topic of Wiki, does it allow anyone to edit page or can you setup a page that can only be edited by you or wiki staff? If this is the case why not create a "Official Wiki page" for Radarbox and within that state that any other page is not official.
Quote from: DaveG on April 13, 2010, 11:26:52 AMOn topic of Wiki, does it allow anyone to edit page or can you setup a page that can only be edited by you or wiki staff?
"Wikipedia is written collaboratively by largely anonymous Internet users who write without pay. Anyone with Internet access can write and make changes to Wikipedia articles. Users can contribute anonymously, under a pseudonym, or with their real identity, if they choose, though the latter is discouraged for safety reasons. The Wikipedia community has developed many policies and guidelines to improve the encyclopedia, however, it is not a formal requirement to be familiar with them before contributing.
Every contribution may be reviewed or changed. The expertise or qualifications of the user is usually not considered. This is possible since Wikipedia's intent is to cover existing knowledge which is verifiable from other sources, original research and ideas are therefore excluded. People of all ages and cultural and social backgrounds can write Wikipedia articles as most of the articles can be edited by anyone with access to the Internet simply by clicking the edit this page link (found at the top of every editable page). Anyone is welcome to add information, cross-references, or citations, as long as they do so within Wikipedia's editing policies and to an appropriate standard. Substandard or disputed information is subject to removal. Users need not worry about accidentally damaging Wikipedia when adding or improving information, as other editors are always around to advise or correct obvious errors, and Wikipedia's software is carefully designed to allow easy reversal of editorial mistakes."
Yes, it is possible to have a Wiki type page that is moderated. This is a project that was started a while back, but other priorities lead to it being put on the back-burner.
http://radarbox.pbworks.com/
It was meant to be a RB community collaborative document, so if anybody is interested, we'll take another look at this.
Hi all
Would the vultures be that stupid, would they ? lol
Maybe another donation or a free box for the upkeep of the vultures site is going their way again.
DNFTT
from pat.
Quote from: Allocator on April 13, 2010, 10:39:15 AMIt would appear that some people have little else to do other than attempt to attract people to a site that takes every opportunity to criticize AirNav, quote posts from this forum out of context and make personal attacks on individuals - I feature there quite often and I'm not a member of the forum - how does that work!!!!!!
I've also featured a fair bit recently, and yet the site moderators will not allow me to re-instate my forum membership so that I can respond to the criticisms of me. Shameful.
I think some of the people on here should run to be a MP in the next Goverment - they all act like silly children too.
Quote from: abrad41 on April 13, 2010, 03:48:54 PM
I think some of the people on here should run to be a MP in the next Goverment - they all act like silly children too.
I concur with the honourable gentleman.
I thought I left stuff like this behind when I left primary school....
Quote from: Protzenalp on April 13, 2010, 04:29:44 PM
Quote from: abrad41 on April 13, 2010, 03:48:54 PM
I think some of the people on here should run to be a MP in the next Goverment - they all act like silly children too.
I concur with the honourable gentleman.
I thought I left stuff like this behind when I left primary school....
Yes, it looks like we are into a ******* contest here. I was the original author of this Wiki and it did develop quite nicely, but that has all ended now. Quite why this editor, no matter who he is, can't go and create their own Wiki.
---------------------
For any version listed below, click on its date to view it. For more help, see Help:Page history and Help:Edit summary.
External tools: Revision history statistics · Revision history search · Number of watchers · Page view statistics (cur) = difference from current version, (prev) = difference from preceding version, m = minor edit, → = section edit, ← = automatic edit summary
* (cur | prev) 18:32, 13 April 2010 Radarspotters (talk | contribs) m (3,067 bytes) (Undid revision 355801446 by Allocator101 (talk)) (undo) (Tag: possible conflict of interest)
* (cur | prev) 18:30, 13 April 2010 Allocator101 (talk | contribs) (2,954 bytes) (→External links) (undo)
* (cur | prev) 18:28, 13 April 2010 Radarspotters (talk | contribs) m (3,067 bytes) (→External links) (undo) (Tag: possible conflict of interest)
* (cur | prev) 17:59, 13 April 2010 Allocator101 (talk | contribs) (2,954 bytes) (→External links) (undo)
* (cur | prev) 15:58, 13 April 2010 Radarspotters (talk | contribs) m (3,067 bytes) (→External links) (undo) (Tag: possible conflict of interest)
* (cur | prev) 10:36, 13 April 2010 Allocator101 (talk | contribs) (2,954 bytes) (→External links) (undo)
* (cur | prev) 06:30, 13 April 2010 Radarspotters (talk | contribs) m (3,067 bytes) (undo) (Tag: possible conflict of interest)
Well, I've wasted enough time on this. This troublemaker obviously considers that their link to another website is far more important than any of the other links. I encourage everybody to read all the information out there on the web and to make their own minds up :-)
The Internet is a wonderful thing, but only up to a point. It's reassuring that somebody is so threatened that they want to cause trouble like this.
# (cur | prev) 18:59, 13 April 2010 Radarspotters (talk | contribs) m (3,130 bytes) (→External links) (undo)
# (cur | prev) 18:58, 13 April 2010 Allocator101 (talk | contribs) (3,129 bytes) (→External links) (undo)
# (cur | prev) 18:56, 13 April 2010 Radarspotters (talk | contribs) m (3,129 bytes) (→External links) (undo) (Tag: possible conflict of interest)
# (cur | prev) 18:54, 13 April 2010 Allocator101 (talk | contribs) (3,128 bytes) (Undid revision 355805051 by Radarspotters (talk)) (undo)
# (cur | prev) 18:50, 13 April 2010 Radarspotters (talk | contribs) m (3,129 bytes) (→External links) (undo) (Tag: possible conflict of interest)
# (cur | prev) 18:44, 13 April 2010 Allocator101 (talk | contribs) (3,128 bytes) (→External links) (undo)
# (cur | prev) 18:39, 13 April 2010 Allocator101 (talk | contribs) (3,066 bytes) (→External links) (undo)
# (cur | prev) 18:37, 13 April 2010 Allocator101 (talk | contribs) (3,067 bytes) (→External links) (undo)
# (cur | prev) 18:32, 13 April 2010 Radarspotters (talk | contribs) m (3,067 bytes) (Undid revision 355801446 by Allocator101 (talk)) (undo) (Tag: possible conflict of interest)
# (cur | prev) 18:30, 13 April 2010 Allocator101 (talk | contribs) (2,954 bytes) (→External links) (undo)
# (cur | prev) 18:28, 13 April 2010 Radarspotters (talk | contribs) m (3,067 bytes) (→External links) (undo) (Tag: possible conflict of interest)
# (cur | prev) 17:59, 13 April 2010 Allocator101 (talk | contribs) (2,954 bytes) (→External links) (undo)
# (cur | prev) 15:58, 13 April 2010 Radarspotters (talk | contribs) m (3,067 bytes) (→External links) (undo) (Tag: possible conflict of interest)
# (cur | prev) 10:36, 13 April 2010 Allocator101 (talk | contribs) (2,954 bytes) (→External links) (undo)
# (cur | prev) 06:30, 13 April 2010 Radarspotters (talk | contribs) m (3,067 bytes) (undo) (Tag: possible conflict of interest)
Quote from: Allocator on April 13, 2010, 10:39:15 AM
Yes, very tiresome.
It would appear that some people have little else to do other than attempt to attract people to a site that takes every opportunity to criticize AirNav, quote posts from this forum out of context and make personal attacks on individuals - I feature there quite often and I'm not a member of the forum - how does that work!!!!!!
I once was a member of said site and took part in their photo competiton, the voting was reset before the closing date because I was in first place. :-)
I've just been given a 'red card' by Wiki and they are now deleting my 3D screenshots on receipt for 'copywrite' reasons -lol
I guess that we'll just have to live without a RadarBox Wiki.
Quote from: EMA on April 13, 2010, 08:26:15 PM
Quote from: Allocator on April 13, 2010, 10:39:15 AM
Yes, very tiresome.
It would appear that some people have little else to do other than attempt to attract people to a site that takes every opportunity to criticize AirNav, quote posts from this forum out of context and make personal attacks on individuals - I feature there quite often and I'm not a member of the forum - how does that work!!!!!!
I once was a member of said site and took part in their photo competiton, the voting was reset before the closing date because I was in first place. :-)
Hi.
If you notice that site says there aircraft spotters, but at every opportunity they try to take down AirNav ShipTrax ,
"what the hell has ShipTrax got to with aircraft spotting".
that just proves the site is just there to take down this airnav site nothing else,
if airnav had a program for pigeon spotting they would probably shoot them to
lol
from pat