Jump to content

Talk:Authorize.Net

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

over IP?

[edit]

I think the line "Over IP (Internet Protocol)" should be removed, it's pretty meaningless. It's a website, so obviously it's over IP, but that's a technical issue that has nothing to do with it. Commends? —Preceding unsigned comment added by DanielTahar (talk • contribs) 16:01, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

My concern is that the section sort of reads like, "Okay, if you are a merchant interested in using Authorize.net, here are your options and here is how you get the ball rolling." I do think it may be worthy to not that Authorize.net doesn't sell directly to merchants, but it would be good if we could find a different way to phrase it.

Also, this section could be quite a bit shorter. Wikipedia doesn't need to detail the merchant options for Authorize.net; it just should give a general overview of the company and what it does. I don't think the ADvanced Integration thing or whatever it is is worthy of mention; it's just a product. --Jaysweet (talk) 14:47, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The information provided in this article was very useful for me. The SIM/AIM comparison was precisely what I needed to know. I think it helps distinguish Authorize.net from several other companies that offer only one or the other. If you're not familiar with the industry (like me), this article helps identify why the company receives so much attention. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.195.3.17 (talk) 16:21, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

After reading the article I knew that they weren't some fraud website. Even ad-like articles have their uses, I guess. 174.3.179.138 (talk) 19:29, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's an ad so I boldy deleted it. SQGibbon (talk) 21:47, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't delete articles that are written wrong, fix them, or at least ask that they be fixed. If you delete a valid article, it will simply come back to life within a few minutes, thanks to alert WP editors. David Spector (talk) 16:29, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

any difference between Authorize.Net and PayPal?

[edit]

I supposed Authorize.Net and PayPal both were payment gateways. After reading the first paragraph of Authorize.Net, I guess, maybe I do not understand the relation between a payment gateway and PayPal. Does PayPal interact with a payment gateway, such as Authorize.Net, in some technical ways? Could anyone help clarfy the relation between them? (signature and date/time omitted by the poster)

My understanding is that Authorize.Net and PayPal.Com are two different and competing websites for making and receiving payments of money. Their interfaces (web pages) are similar but also very different, and I am sure they are different in many practical details, yet they provide similar services. A gateway is the way a computer program or a web program can make or receive a payment on behalf of a real person who may be using a web page that itself is using Authorize or Paypal to make or receive a payment on behalf of the person. The gateway is the mechanism behind web pages. As to a relationship between Authorize.net and PayPal, there is none, and so the article does not say that there is any such relationship. One most certainly does not use the other, since they are competing companies. David Spector (talk) 16:25, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Authorize.Net. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 04:25, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments, sources

[edit]

I'd like to help improve this article. It has very little information about the company, but that information is available in good news sources. I understand that as an employee it's best to leave significant changes to others, so I'm bringing this up here, and I can get more specific in suggestions if that's helpful.

Also, I wonder if the off-topic comments above, on this talk page, could be archived or removed? -d.unay (talk) 16:43, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't seen any response to the above, though I see that Delarun has expanded the article some, though I'm not sure whether it's in response to my comment or an independent effort. I'm glad to see the additions, but not sure they are the best ones, as they cite no independent sources.

I'm going to start making a few changes, which I think are uncontroversial improvements. (One of them does tweak a bit of what Delarun added.) If I don't get any independent feedback, I will seek it out before suggesting more substantial changes or additions. Also, I am going to delete a couple off-topic comments above; if there is a better way to archive them, please let me know. But I think these comments in no way contribute to writing an encyclopedia article, so maybe it's no big deal to simply remove them; happy for any advice.

Also, any other views about Delarun's additions? -d.unay (talk) 22:36, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted the competitors section that was recently added. This was incorrect information as First Data is a merchant service provider and is actually a partner of Authorize.Net. Any information about competitors would need to be sourced.d.unay (talk) 22:51, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Authorize.Net. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 18:01, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Still seeking feedback

[edit]

I've continued to make a few changes and additions, but I'd really like to have some input from an uninvolved contributor. Materialscientist, David spector, Delarun, I see you have all worked on the article in the past. Would you mind taking a look at my edits, and my comments above? -d.unay (talk) 17:43, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for rating this article, Sargdub. Do you think you could look into any of the specific issues I've brought up on the talk page, or my edit history? I've been having a little trouble getting feedback so far. -d.unay (talk) 20:06, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi d.unay, I think the changes you suggested and made are fine and I don't see them as controversial, it's a shame that the reference to the outage is dead but appreciate that you marked them as such. If you are an employee of this company I would read WP:COI and you should be wary of making changes as its hard to be neutral, however I dont see any issue with the changes you made, but please WP:DISCLOSE them here using the template Template:Connected contributor. Sargdub (talk) 00:43, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I just read the article quickly and do not see a problem with NPOV or other WP policies. It seems descriptive in a helpful way, and does not hide a major outage that occurred. David Spector (talk) 19:34, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sargdub and David spector, thank you very much for the feedback, for your further edits, and for pointing out the Connected Contributor tag. I will apply that tag, please let me know if I've done so correctly.

I'm especially glad you created a separate "services" section, that is something I was going to propose. I have been working on a version that would reference news articles, and goes into a little bit more detail. I'd also like to make a few further edits or suggestions for "history." I of course recognize that removing the outages would not be appropriate, but I have been trying to establish appropriate context for them (that is, more substantive and referenced info about the company). I'd like to suggest trimming out the details that cannot be tied to available references, and adding a bit more history. -d.unay (talk) 20:47, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Trimming "Outages" section

[edit]

I recognize that changes to the "outages" section might require a little discussion, so I'm proposing some changes here instead of adding them directly to the article. I believe this section, while generally accurate, has more detail than is required or useful to the reader. Much of the information about the 2009 outage has no sources available online. I'd like to propose replacing it with the following. Reasonable? -d.unay (talk) 16:45, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Outages

[edit]

Prior to its acquisition by Visa, Authorize.Net had two outages, in 2004 and 2009. In September 2004, its servers were hit by a Distributed Denial of Service (DDoS) attack.[1] A fire in Seattle's Fisher Plaza the night of July 2, 2009 disrupted web services for Authorize.Net and several other companies, including Verizon, Bing Travel, and geocaching.com.[2][3] The disruption continued through the following morning.[4][5]

References

  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference Wired04 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ Miller, Rich (July 3, 2009). "Major Outage at Seattle Data Center". Data Center Knowledge.
  3. ^ Wauters, Robin (July 3, 2009). "Authorize.net Goes Down, E-Commerce Vendors Left Hanging". TechCrunch.
  4. ^ "Fire disrupts stations at Seattle's Fisher Plaza". Seattle Times. July 3, 2009. Archived from the original on July 6, 2009.
  5. ^ "Fire disrupts stations at Seattle's Fisher Plaza" (Press release). July 3, 2009. Archived from the original on July 6, 2009. Retrieved July 6, 2009. {{cite press release}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Authorize.Net&oldid=1205517864"