Talk:Carbonite, Inc.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Software, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of software on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SoftwareWikipedia:WikiProject SoftwareTemplate:WikiProject Softwaresoftware articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Computing.

Neutrality dispute

It seems inappropriate to me that a person who works in the field of promoting various websites and companies (including Carbonite), would be the primary author and contributor to a page on the product that they are promoting, particluarly considering the companies checkered history on staged reviews and other biases in the media. An "independent" source needs to review this article for neutrality, thus I will flag again. Catdsnny (talk) 00:54, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"While some online backup services like AOL’s Xdrive,[6] HP’s Upline[7] and Yahoo’s Briefcase[8] shut down in recent years, Carbonite is credited with making online backup easy by simplifying the process" - seems a lot like and ad. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.222.214.26 (talk • contribs) 19:37, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This really seems like an advert.... to my humble taste. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.250.41.101 (talk) 21:37, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. This page reads very much like an advert. "Carbonite is credited with making online backup easy by simplifying the process"? That is just an advert. Credited by whom? Dcarrera (talk) 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Mike Petro from Petro Computer Solutions makes this point Podnutz podcast episode (Episode 34). This may not be a WP:RS so I wont add it as a ref....but it gives me sufficient satisfaction that the tag can be removed. CyrilThePig4 (talk) 12:58, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This whole article, with the exception of the Amazon controversy stuff, reads like the presentation given to new hires duuring on-boarding with the company. The full history of the company's funding? Really? And where's anything about thier slimey start-up pop-up marketing campaign with the Java installer? That is at least as important as thier 3rd round of VC funding. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.235.47.71 (talk) 05:39, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Poorly Documented Shortcomings

Several serious problems with Carbonite are virtually invisible without careful scrutiny.

There is only one layer of backup.
If any file is damaged by error or virus, the damaged file almost immediately replaces by the backup copy, making recovery impossible.
A lost (accidentally deleted) file is automatically deleted from backup within a month, so you have less than a month to realize it has been deleted, or recovery is impossible.
You can only backup files from your internal hard drives; no removable or external storage can be backed up. (So much for "Unlimited!")
Carbonite has several layers of somewhat arbitrary rules (not clearly defined) and editable rules (no simple way to document & review your own rules and their effects) controlling which files it will or won't backup.
There is no easy way (search?) to identify which of possibly (tens of) thousands of your files it has silently ignored (failed to backup).
Carbonite superimposes a 'status' sub-icon on the icon of every(?) file & folder it handles, which needlessly destroys (obliterates) the windows 'link' indicator sub-icon, making it more difficult to determine if you are deleting a link or the actual file. (See the 'deleted file' problem above.)
There is poor (no) documentation of the issues arising when files are accessed from other than the licensed computer for deletion or editing.

--Wikidity (talk) 04:24, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Internal HD constraint issue (item #4 above) was finally acknowledged by Carbonite, when they released a fix or cost-plus 'enhancement' as a new product. They will not credit the original service charges if you try to upgrade before your original purchase expires. This apparently wipes your current backup account & storage. (I foolishly bought 3 years.)
Wikidity (talk) 16:25, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unsubstantiated Claims

The article makes the claim:

"Carbonite is credited with making online backup easy by simplifying the process"

The PC World article referenced DOES NOT actually make this claim. It is a generally positive review, but it actually points at several things that the author feels are unclear and not well done or are done better by other products. The claim in the article is entirely unsubstantiated. I'm removing this claim from the article. Dcarrera (talk) 22:05, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article also claims that

"Carbonite also pioneered mass market advertising for consumer backup, signing up a variety of spokespersons ranging from Howard Stern to Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly."

The references given do not support the claim that Carbonite pioneered anything. They simply say that Carbonite has recruited those spokespersons to inform the public about backups. That's well and good, but it doesn't support the claim that Carbonite was a pineer. I'm removing this claim too. Dcarrera (talk) 22:13, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Irrelevant content

I think that the entire history section is irrelevant. Does any of it actually matter? It mostly looks like babbling about nothing. I won't delete it right now, but I do think it should be deleted. Dcarrera (talk) 22:18, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point, but I like to see company milestones. Maybe the information needs to be reworked a bit. An example is Sirius_XM_Radio#Milestones. Johcha1024 (talk) 20:48, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Competitors Section

It shouldnt be there at all. While some competitors should be listed, it should only be two-three, and instaed of having a section with 1 line, it should be included in a paragraph somewhere. If it is to be left as a section, it should be moved so that it is not the first section. To me, the competitors section, how it is placed, it almost ad-like in that it makes you want to simply click those and not read the carbonite article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.99.65.10 (talk) 14:48, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. I removed it. - MrOllie (talk) 15:08, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Glenn Beck sponsorship

Is the section regarding the fact that Carbonite is a sponsor of Glenn Beck really necessary? If we're going to list sponsorships of Conservative figures (Carbonite has several, including Sean Hannity, Mark Levin, and Rush Limbaugh), perhaps we should start listing sponsorships of Liberal and non-political figures (such as Kim Komando) in this and various other article across the site as well. Anakin-Marc "DJ AniZ" Zaeger (talk) 04:09, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Carbonite testimonial at spam site

I was concerned to find a testimonial at a site with hidden spam links.

Has anyone investigated further ? Is there a question of whether this product/service merits an article ?

G. Robert Shiplett 01:03, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Not Unlmited

Almost all "unlimited" marketing claims are (must be) lies -- it is great to see that this article discusses some of the actual limits! -96.233.19.113 (talk) 20:41, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Carbonite (online backup). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:55, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Shortcoming

The most serious shortcoming of Carbonite is that there is no installed program backup. They tell me I should reinstall from my installation CDs or my downloaded installation files from the Internet. Who has all of those, especially for a Windows 7 PC?--Dthomsen8 (talk) 13:26, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Carbonite (online backup). 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) 18:57, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]