Talk:CueCat - Misplaced Pages

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the CueCat article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

This article is rated C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Computing Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article has been marked as needing an infobox.

Getting a CueCat

Any place you can get one free these days? Superweirdash

Ha. No. Not for the last five years or so. You can get them from eBay for a few bucks, or some other places. If you have an actual use for them, I'd say it's well worth it; traditional barcode readers are still frightfully uncheap. I'm considering fetching one myself to catalog my books. (Oh, and you can sign your comments by writing ~~~~ after your comment. I've done it above for you.) grendel|khan June 29, 2005 20:34 (UTC)

I got mine for free from a RadioShack in Alaska in 2001. They were handing them out, and I knew I didn't need it, but it looked cool :). -Mys e kurity 05:09, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Cleanup?

Is there a particular reason that cleanup was requested? The article seems to flow pretty well for me; what's wrong with it? grendel|khan 03:37, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

I was wondering that myself... Dpbsmith (talk) 13:28, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Made some link edits today chasing down citations needed and was not logged in. Was me, found the legal documents where CueCat folks sent notice to hackers. Updated the citations needed and chased down one link which was supposedly referring to cuecat but was not part of the article on bankruptcy by CBS Marketwatch . Sorry still learning how to do all this. SoftwareNerdTech (talk) 22:39, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Pictures

Do pictures that I have taken of copyrighted devices count as my work? If I want to take a picture of a :CueCat, do I have to tag it as {{fairuse}}, or can I tag it as {{PD-self}}? -Mys e ku rity 23:29, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

If you make a picture of a car, does the pic belong to you, or to General Motors? There is already a plethora of pictures of eg. gaming consoles and other stuff as {{GFDL}}, so I don't see why {{pd-self}} would be wrong choice here. On another note, do you plan to make a pic of its circuitboard and the sensing element too? --Shaddack 02:30, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, and I don't see why not. I guess I'll first take a few pictures of the device itself, then of its parts (I have the PS/2 model) like the plug and others. I kind of want to keep my :CueCat just to laugh at it in a few more years. Maybe I could get another one for cheap, which I'd be willing to dissasemble, just this one has some small significance to me. I'll upload the pictures as soon as I can (and if I forget--not done in a week--feel free to spam my talk page). Thanks again, Mys e ku rity 03:07, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Please do. Cuecats go for under ten bucks each after shipping, and way less if those eBay people let you combine shipping. grendel|khan 05:32, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Sorry it's taking me so long. I think I'm going to order one of these tonight, but will someone walk me through what to take a picture of? I'm not exactly sure what to do once I get it. -Mys e ku rity 20:41, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Article Title

Is it possible to rename the article to something like :CueCat or some lead Unicode character? Similar to how C plus plus was done. 130.156.3.34 20:44, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

It's not possible, due to technical restrictions. The article title must begin with a capitalized alphabet character or a numerical. Czj 00:18, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

DigitalConvergence

If I'm not mistaken, CueCat was really DigitalConvergence's only claim to fame. As such, and since there was no Misplaced Pages article for DC, I've redirected DigitalConvergence to CueCat, at least until (or if) someone decides to expand on the corp itself. --Czj 23:39, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

There was also another technology CRQ that they developed with a similar premise. You'd hear a tone on TV that sounded like a knock and a musical note and it would somehow send you to a particular website. I don't think that any major advertisers or programs ever employed this, but I'm not sure, nor do I know how it worked (e.g., how it got the TV signal into the software and how it got the URL.)128.195.20.127 23:49, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Pretty crude, they made a cable with a phono stacking plug on one end and a stereo jack the other to plug into your soundcards line in. I got one with my (unfortunately broken) cuecat and i think i still have it somewhere. Plugwash 16:08, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

NBC launched the CRQ television technology nationally on its Thursday Must See TV lineup during Friends, etc. This technology was an audible barcode that was decoded by the sound card. Quite ingenious. Has anyone even attempted to contact the inventor mentioned within the story?

Hello, I have posetd a discussion topic for separating the Cue Cat record from the Digital Convergence record. Can I get any and all input. Thanks (ProofPlus Professional Researcher 19:23, 2 November 2011 (UTC)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Proofplus (talk • contribs)

Thank each of you, wiki editors and such, for giving me such great pointers and also for the direct emails of encouragement in learning this process. Shabbat Shalom - and since it's Friday I plan to make my additions and updates to the record on Monday. ProofPlus Professional Researcher 19:35, 4 November 2011 (UTC) (ProofPlus Professional Researcher 19:35, 4 November 2011 (UTC)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Proofplus (talk • contribs)

Hobbyists

Aren't there communities of hobbyists that hacked them for other purposes? Or are they used just as a standard barcode reader? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.203.200.2 (talk • contribs)

Not as far as I know. I've read about hobbyists who played around with the guts a little bit and got some weird results, but nothing noteworthy or conclusive other than the ability to use it as a bar code scanner. If you've read about anything else though, I'd be interested in taking a look. --stufff 23:38, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Barcode scanner's as far as the hardware could be pushed. They weren't capable of much more. Apparently some people stripped out most of the hardware apart from the LED, added batteries and a switch, and used it as a flashlight.

What I think is strange is that nothing about hacking them is mentioned in the article. The CueCat is notable for only two things: a bunch of people remember getting them in the mail or getting them free at RadioShack, and a bunch of those people had a lot of fun figuring out how to hack them to get a free UPC scanner. The hacking effort is the notable part from a lot of people's perspective, and it doesn't even get a mention in the article. Maybe someone wants to start here: http://cexx.org/cuecat.htm — Saxifrage ✎ 03:02, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

There are lots of Hacks for the :CueCat not many people knew about :CRQ which was the audio tone cueing system - a few adds had them and if your pc had the software loaded it would cache the tones it heard so you could look up the ad's or special offers 01:20, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Shape

The article says it's cat shaped, but many thought it looked like something else. // Liftarn

It's obviously cat-shaped in the included picture. For what else could one possibly mistake it? --Lance E Sloan (talk) 15:12, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

For POSSIBLE inclusion and discussion. There were 5 different form factors of the CueCat. Most people knew the tampon shaped looking one because it was the most famous since one million people activated one. But there were a pen, a fob, a keychain, a cell phone attachment and a microsoft mouse version. there are photos and files of these circulating on the net. Shouldn't these be included as well?

Comments? (ProofPlus Professional Researcher 19:26, 2 November 2011 (UTC)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Proofplus (talk • contribs)

I wasn't aware of these other form factors, though they don't surprise me. If there is good documentation (text and/or photos), these other forms certainly should be added to the article. Reify-tech (talk) 21:07, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Merger

I've proposed merging Digital Convergence Corporation into this article as it seems unlikely to pick up much more material on its own. — Hex (❝?!❞) 16:27, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Broken Link to Homepage

The homepage link is broken. Might want to fix that. Xe7al (talk) 20:57, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Cue Cat edits

Here are some important facts that should be added to the Cue cat history page: (more at end)

CueCat and DigitalConvergence, in 2001, won the Top Honors of The Laureate Medal within the Media, Arts and Entertainment category for the Smithsonian/ComputerWorld Honors Program. The "Search for Heroes Program" award title was "Technology Most Likely To Change the World". The award is an technology industry sponsored award and all awards are reviewed and given based on the review of the Top 100 Technology CEO's at the time the award is given. The award established in 1989 was co-sponsored through 2001 by the Smithsonian Institution and was co-founded by ComputerWorld Magazine. The Honors Winners Case Studies are preserved for case study in Archives Center at American History at the Smithsonian and become course work materials for 134 institutions which are actively engaged in the preservation, protection and dissemination of these materials and have been designated Members of the Computerworld Honors Global Archives and Academic Council.

The are the verifing links: http://www.cwhonors.org/ (describes the awarding organization) http://www.cwhonors.org/Search/his_4a.asp?search=&cat=Media&year=2001&Submit2=Search (this is the archive for the award) http://www.cwhonors.org/Search/his_4a_detail.asp?id=4259 (this is the case study) http://www.cwhonors.org/Search/his_3.asp (this is the archive and reviewing universities and the case study can be found in archives there. http://en.wikipedia.org/ComputerWorld_Smithsonian_Award (the award on wiki and top 100 CEO's) http://siris-archives.si.edu/ipac20/ipac.jsp?uri=full=3100001~!140524!0#focus (Smithsonian flies) http://www.cwhonors.org/Search/his_3.asp (verification of 134 instutions and who they are)

Have some concerns of broken links within this record, unnecessary edits and and people undoing factual data.

Any issues with the facts and correctness of this addition to CueCat?

Plan to review here and then submit within a few days if there is no reasonable objection to these facts. (Proofplus (talk) 17:51, 2 November 2011 (UTC))

Thank you for the lift of AutoBlock NEW - DIGITAL CONVERGENCE

Would like to have a discussion here about the separating of the CueCat file from the DigitalConvergence file. That would be DigitalConveregence in the use of NO SPACE between the two words.

DigitalConvergecem the Intellectual Property set, survived the closure of the CueCat version of the project. I see here the two files have been combined. Thus DigitalConvergence points to CueCat. Althought the CueCat record is sparse and fairly inaccurate with broken links, the file of DigitalConvergence should be its own record set.

Up for discussion: The Intellectual Property survived the DigitalConvergence close of operations. DigitalConvergence won awards for it's IP and software - separate and apart from the DEVICE known as Cuecat. CueCat was a device not a company The DigitalConveregence company was an intellectual property set, a database set, and other incarnations of scanning technology, therefore would suggest a breaking apart of the record so they can be properly documents.

As a BUSINESS case study in over 130 Universities and Institutions of Higher Learning, this should be fact enough for the speparations. See my previous links under cuecat discussion to avoid clutter her.

Please provide comments. Thank you for your consdierations (ProofPlus Professional Researcher 19:13, 2 November 2011 (UTC)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Proofplus (talk • contribs)

If I understand you properly, you believe there should be a separate article on the company, DigitalConvergence. If I'm correct, please provide here some secondary sources indicating notability of the company.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:21, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Bbb23 would you read my topic below titled "WOW Bbb23? Cue Cat Net Talk and you go around deleting all records of this company???What happened?" and give me some clue as to what your mission is with these topics associated with the company digitalconvergence? ProofPlus Professional Researcher 19:14, 10 November 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Proofplus (talk • contribs)

Notification to Commentors PREVIOUSLY (ProofPlus Professional Researcher 19:58, 2 November 2011 (UTC))

(ProofPlus Professional Researcher 19:58, 2 November 2011 (UTC)) I have individually contacted each commentor and editor on the cue cat record over the last term to please review my suggestions for the record. Please review my comments and let's have a discussion. Thank you (ProofPlus Professional Researcher 19:58, 2 November 2011 (UTC)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Proofplus (talk • contribs)

Still seeking comments on my suggestions

Good Morning all,

Still seeking suggestions on the links and facts provided to all here. Notifed all who have edited cue cat records and seeking comments to the information I posted. and, Admins and such, thank you for all the help, suggestions and pointers. most kind. (ProofPlus Professional Researcher 17:41, 3 November 2011 (UTC)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Proofplus (talk • contribs)

Thank each of you, wiki editors and such, for giving me such great pointers and also for the direct emails of encouragement in learning this process. Shabbat Shalom - and since it's Friday I plan to make my additions and updates to the record on Monday. ProofPlus Professional Researcher 19:36, 4 November 2011 (UTC) (ProofPlus Professional Researcher 19:36, 4 November 2011 (UTC)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Proofplus (talk • contribs)

Cue Cat edits

Hello to all, I posted the simple additions to the cue cat page as we disucssed. Thanks for all your help (ProofPlus Professional Researcher 17:32, 7 November 2011 (UTC)) ProofPlus Professional Researcher 17:32, 7 November 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Proofplus (talk • contribs)

Most of what you added didn't comport with the sources. I could find nothing to indicate that CueCat got a Smithsonian award, just the Laureate designation (and even then, I couldn't tell if it got the designation or was merely nominated for it). All of the stuff about how the award works is wholly unnecessary.

At this point, it doesn't deserve its own section for one "honor" from 2001, but I'll leave it that way in case you want to contend that there's support for expanding it. Please discuss any expansion here before changing what's in the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:14, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

I am in complete agreement with Bbb23. It is OK to mention what a reliable source says about the product getting an award, but explaining the award belongs in an article about the award, not the product. Cullen Let's discuss it 15:41, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Hello, the awards are relevant to the history of cuecat. Would you consider relooking over the facts about the codie award, since there are two awards for the device? Thanks ProofPlus Professional Researcher 16:27, 8 November 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Proofplus (talk • contribs)

This source discusses the issue and links to a list of finalists which doesn't mention CueCat. Doug Weller talk 18:22, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Bbb23 Harrassment and repeated UNDO of valid records

To ALL in this discussion group.

The edits to the Cue cat record were posted for two weeks for comments. Bbb23 and others were notified of the corrections to be made and left open for comments. Repeatedly Bbb23 for some reason seems to act hostile to this record. This has me wondering? Does Bbb23 have some axe to grind? His repeated deletions to this record are an insult to everyone trying to improve ANY wiki article. Bbb23 what exactly are your issues? All the links were there. All the facts were there. And you used some bogus claim of "can't find nomination"? Does not an award being awarded, in fact by shear default show somewhere a nomination of some sort? Plus, the link directly to the Codie Award -which clearly states the award given for Best Reference Tool, and you just deleted it???

http://www.siia.net/codies/2011/pw_2001.asp

In an enviroment where Wiki is seeking donations, you are doing harm to people by turning them off to wiki, thus why would they give money to have hostile acts by individual users like you?ProofPlus Professional Researcher 15:41, 8 November 2011 (UTC) (ProofPlus Professional Researcher 15:41, 8 November 2011 (UTC)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Proofplus (talk • contribs)

Wiki - Cue Cat and Funds and UNDO of proper research

Hello again to all,

This reminds me of my son's playgroup of 5 year olds. They argue, but really have littler no reason to do so. But I guess thats the wiki way.

Speaking of the wiki way. My understanding was: 1. Go to discussion group 2. Post suggestions 3. Review comments 4. Agree 5. Make revisions to the record

I did each of these, but Cullen/Bbb23 and whatever other name, made NO suggestions or comments.

Now I can see that Bbb23 thinks this record is his personal sandbox, but I did open this to suggestions and there was not a single challenge or comment. So, I can only surmise, that there is some personal grind going on here. But then again, I offered ALL MY toys to the group and said "look over my toys" and offer any suggestions.

Is this the wiki way? I am surprised since on EVERY wiki page at the moment, there is a plea for donations. How does one foster community and getting money for Wiki when there are SO many children playing in the sandbox, claiming "this is the wrong sand? OR " How do we really know this is sand, I did not see it dug up?"

To those. Why don't you just edit with a sense of being a professional. The Codie award link is there and valid. So, make sure it is in the record.

Other than that. I can clearly see the pattern, it is evident on all the edits to this record and others. Two or more work together to undo valid work, and then the one posting it, which takes great pride in the work, undoes the undos, and then they get flagged.

Yes, boys, it is, by virtue of your time on here, YOUR sandbox, and your roommates, box mates and cube mates can try to force ones hand, but the pattern is very clear and it does damage the reputation of wiki when you engage in this behavior.

Thank you boys for remaining boys, and thank you to the few gentlemen who have been such in this endeavor.

As for me, will keep updating this record and won't give any money to wiki until boys become men. ProofPlus Professional Researcher 15:55, 8 November 2011 (UTC) ProofPlus Professional Researcher 15:55, 8 November 2011 (UTC) (ProofPlus Professional Researcher 15:55, 8 November 2011 (UTC)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Proofplus (talk • contribs)

SUGGESTION for Edit to RECORD for Cue Cat

In my last edits to the record for Cue Cat, Bbb23 (the master of all edits cue cat) has decided to leave off the following award for cuecat:

Best Reference Tool

CRQ Technology, Digital: Convergence Corp.

http://www.siia.net/codies/2011/pw_2001.asp (listing of award given)

http://www.siia.net/codies/2011/story.asp (history of award)

Please review. SINCE this is a COMBINED RECORD of Cue Cat and Digital Convergence this award belongs here, Unless the record is split.

Please make comments, or hide until I make the updates in a week, and then come out of the woodwork and start setting the reputation of wiki further back.

COMMENTS ProofPlus Professional Researcher 15:59, 8 November 2011 (UTC) (ProofPlus Professional Researcher 15:59, 8 November 2011 (UTC)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Proofplus (talk • contribs)

The Codie award is a notable award, and :CRQ is a component of CueCat covered in this article. I've added a sentence to the article noting that it won the award. —C.Fred (talk) 00:05, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Hello C.Fred, I posted a list of errors in this record to solicit comments. Is allot of work so I want comments before I post up all the links and such. Can you look over and make suggestions? And is this the best way to list errors to a record? Basically line by line? Tahnks for any guidane and help to you and ALL ProofPlus Professional Researcher 19:48, 9 November 2011 (UTC) I am learning and will get better as I go, just want to do a great job and learn this. ProofPlus Professional Researcher 19:48, 9 November 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Proofplus (talk • contribs)

STYLE versus FACT

When I first posted and read the record on this topic, everyone stated, POST FACTS that can be verified. That is what I did. Then it was undone.

Are there any professional, exaulted, profuse editors here following this record, that would care to update the cuecat record with the following fact and have clout enough to let facts reign and not have hard work and research undone?

In my last edits to the record for Cue Cat, Bbb23 (the master of all edits cue cat) has decided to leave off the following award for cuecat:

Best Reference Tool

CRQ Technology, Digital: Convergence Corp.

http://www.siia.net/codies/2011/pw_2001.asp (listing of award given)

http://www.siia.net/codies/2011/story.asp (history of award)

Please review. SINCE this is a COMBINED RECORD of Cue Cat and Digital Convergence this award belongs here, Unless the record is split.

Please make comments, or hide until I make the updates in a week, and then come out of the woodwork and start setting the reputation of wiki further back.

COMMENTS ProofPlus Professional Researcher 15:59, 8 November 2011 (UTC) (ProofPlus Professional Researcher 15:59, 8 November 2011 (UTC)) ProofPlus Professional Researcher 16:07, 8 November 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Proofplus (talk • contribs)

Response to Proofplus

See above sections.

The Codie award was not in your original edit I reverted. I have no problem with the award being in the article as inserted by User:C.Fred. You really need to get a grip, or you are going to be blocked as a disruptive editor who is not interested in editing constructively or discussing articles in a reasonable manner.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:20, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I also encourage you, Proofplus, to back off from the confrontational tone and try to cooperate and collaborate with other editors. I give you a 100% guarantee that a friendlier and more reasonable approach will result in far greater success for you as a Misplaced Pages editor, and a better quality article about the CueCat and also about any other notable topic of interest to you. We are all volunteers here - treat us with respect and you will be treated with respect as well. Cullen Let's discuss it 05:15, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

CULLEN, I have listed errors in the article on Cue cat. Is this the best way to solicit comments and point out article errors? ProofPlus Professional Researcher 19:45, 9 November 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Proofplus (talk • contribs)

CULLEN, I posted a new topic of "WOW Bbb23? Cue Cat Net Talk and you go around deleting all records of this company???What happened?" seems that Bbb23 has gone around and deleted all records relating to the Digital Convergence and Cue cat history and some are connected to my updates and the links WERE there in another record called Net talk live and he has gone there too and deleted someones article. Is this interconnected? and I am about to be posting all the additional sources here to make this record better and seems Kbb23 goes around and deletes all he can about this company? Suggestions? Worrried about my efforts here? ProofPlus Professional Researcher 19:17, 10 November 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Proofplus (talk • contribs)

CueCat factual record errors ADVICE PLEASE

Hello gentlemen, thank you ALL for your help. In trying to improve this particular record there are some inaccurate items within the record. Here is what they are itemized and I would like to correct them and add the references. I am posting this to see if there are any issues with them. Please message me and let me know.

1. ON EXISTING ARTICLE: "was developed in the late 1990s" CORRECTION NEEDED: the technology according to SEC files and audits show the creation dates if 1992 idea documentation, 1993 loop test, 1994 initial test, 1995 larger test, 1996 platofrom test and 1997 test launch. Therfore the idea existed as a technology as early as 1993 in a working function. This different than LATE 1990's

2. ON EXISTING ARTICLE: "open a link to an Internet URL by scanning a barcode" CORRECTION NEEDED: the technology mapped a bar code of any of the 8 types available at the time to map to a remote server for resolution to a specific web address. FACT: the bar code or swipe was not a link in any kind and did not have an embedded link. There is a difference and this was stated in the SEC documents and IP searches.

3. ON EXISTING ARTICLE: "100 patents developed by the company during its inception" CORRECTION NEEDED: searches show 116 US Patents and 97 Patents in over 170 countries and annexes of such.

4. ON EXISTING RECORD: "been licensed to consumer and commercial equipment manufacturers, services and enterprises.[citation needed" CORRECTIONS NEEDED. Federal USPTO records show the patents of Digital Convergece were acquired by RPX Corp. ON RPX Corp it shows the patents have been licensed to 103 companies, with an average $6.6 million dollar a year license, and the list of the company include Microsoft, Ebay, and huge tech companies now in this space. Important point I think

5. ON EXISTING ARTICLE: "computers using the PS/2 keyboard port and later and less commonly, USB" CORRECTION NEEDED: seems the S1 and RadioShack announcements show 1 million PS/2 and 2 million USB were manufactured, thus this fact in the record is REVERSED. Needs correction to be factual.

6. ON EXISTING ARTICLE: "also bulk mailed (unsolicited) to certain mailing lists, such" CORRECTION NEEDED: articles show the device was not mailed by Digital but was subscription gifts from publishers to subscribers. This is a huge factual difference in the record

7. ON EXISTING ARTICLE: "roughly a year, starting in October 2000, The Dallas Morning News" CORRECTION NEEDED: Belos shows first paper made interactive with the technology was December 1999. Time stated is incorrect

8. ON EXISTING ARTICLE TWO TIMES BODY AND SIDEBAR: "200 employees as of 2000" CORRECTION NEEDED: SEC, and Bankruptcy records show 1250 employees at company demise. Huge difference in size of company

9. ON EXISTING RECORD: "The television technology was launched on NBC during its "Must See TV" programming" CORRECTION NEEDED: seems the Tv version was launched August 1997, and belo confirms this since it was inside a Belo syndicated TV show called Net Talk. Time line incorrect here. NBC, from my understanding was a PROMOTION for NBC exclusively but the technology was already in use on ABC, CBS, and others in syndication of some sort. SEC S1 shows this as well.

10. ON EXISTING RECORD: "blog Gizmodo voted the CueCat the #1 worst invention of the "2000s" decade." CORRECTION NEEDED: seems GIZMODO did a redo a year later covering scanning commerce and now shows its a top app and may have as many as 156,000,000 worldwide users. This is the intellectual property that RPX licenses, seems the technology survived and the cat was all that got cooked. Important to note

11. ON EXISTING ARTICLE: "approximately 140,000 CueCat users " CORRECTION NEEDED: seems this was retracted and updated to just over 14,000 unsers in total. Seems a huge difference. Plus, this is in contrast to 1,000,000 active and registered users. Big difference don't you guys think?

12. ON EXISTING RECORD: "The booklover social networking site LibraryThing sells USB CueCats to aid with scanning ISBN barcodes for entering books into the site." CoRRECTION NEEDED: Technorati did a review in 150 apps based on cuecat technology and Ebay announced 56,000,000 users of its scan shop app based on their license of cuecat technology. Seems more apps and such should be added here?

13. ON EXISTING RECORD: "than 110 granted US patents" on bottom of page, duplicates an erro at top but still a wrong number.

These are really minor touches in how the sentences are worded. Any suggestions? and I will submit single line corrections here for review with the relevant links.

Want to know IF there are any objections before I enter all this in. I will post sentences and corrections line by line and seek your approvals. ThanksProofPlus Professional Researcher 19:44, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

ProofPlus Professional Researcher 19:44, 9 November 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Proofplus (talk • contribs)

Please take them one at a time, and please provide a solid reference to a reliable source for each change you propose. When you say that a change is a "correction", please be clear about what the incorrect information is. Thank you. Cullen Let's discuss it 20:00, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Wonderful, I will start posting HERE in the discussion page, each item by item, for review. I will do the same as I did before. Share the facts, the suggested modification to the record and the source link. Many thanks. And, thanks to all you guys for your direct emails to me of encouragement and support. It's is nice and I was really fustrated. Thanks ProofPlus Professional Researcher 19:04, 10 November 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Proofplus (talk • contribs)

WOW Bbb23? Cue Cat Net Talk and you go around deleting all records of this company???What happened?

In prepping my various links for the cuecat post and going back and refact checking the record, I find that Bbb23 actually deleted almost completely an article for Net Talk. Why is this important? In tracking down the history of Cue cat and Crq the records show they were introduced by the technology TV talk show called Net talk or Net Talk Live. When looking over that record to find the exact dates for such, I see that Bbb23 stripped that record and all the references that used to be there.

QUESTION: If the Cue cat and Crq software was released in the television program net talk live and that is well know, why would Bbb23 go in an delete that record just as he has been doing on cue cat. Help me here, what is the connection for such deletions?

When I look back at the original versions of the ne talk record all the links are there and Bbb23 has made them go away? Can someone help me with this link between Bbb23 and these two interconnected records and why he seems to be deleting everything ever written about them?

Just concerned, since I don't want to go through the exact process again with fixing the cue cat updated facts and then have Bbb23 delete them when the record is good. Suggestions annyone? ProofPlus Professional Researcher 19:11, 10 November 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Proofplus (talk • contribs)

When you "updated facts" for CueCat, what reliable sources were you using that we can take a look at?

As for Bbb23's edits to the Net Talk article, other stuff exists. It is not improbable that an editor with an interest in one technology subject will also look at articles on other topics, and each article is considered separately on the merits (or lack thereof) of the material presented. If Bbb23 saw unsourced material there, he was within his rights and duties as an editor to remove it. —C.Fred (talk) 01:36, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Cullen and Bbb23???/ Whats the connection

Wow, Cullen, I just went back and relooked at records that would be relevant to my update of cue cat facts and I find that BOTH you and Bbb23 edited the Net Talk Live record the exact same way you did to the Cue cat file and in the same span of time. Whats the connection here? You have asserted that you and Bbb23 are in no way connected and you took offense when I pointed that out on Cue cat record and then here is the SAME thing on Net Talk live record. Can you help me understand how you TWO randomly edited the same two records? The same span of time and same deleting good facts and links?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Proofplus (talk • contribs) 19:25, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Both Bbb23 and I became aware of these two articles at approximately the same time. The connection is clear - these are related articles because, as you well know, both are associated with Jeffry Jovan Philyaw, also known as J. Hutton Pulitzer. This person was the creator and host of the talk show in question, and also the inventor of the CueCat, which lost roughly US $185 million of its investor's money. We do not edit at random - we both monitor problematic articles. Bbb23 and I have no connection other than that we are both active Misplaced Pages editors who pay attention to controversial topics, and try to ensure that Misplaced Pages articles about such topics comply with our standards here. There are many such editors here, who communicate and cooperate from time to time. It is exactly that sort of collaboration that has produced the world's greatest encyclopedia, with nearly 3.8 million articles in English, and millions more in other languages. Cullen Let's discuss it 02:57, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Reliable sources

I have expanded this article based on what reliable, independent sources have said about the CueCat at the time of its introduction, and since then. I intend to remove any claims that are not based on reliable, independent sources. Any further additions to the article must be based on what indisputably reliable, independent sources say. There will be no exceptions to this. Cullen Let's discuss it 04:12, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

here is a link Cullen Bbb23 on Mark Cuban and you need to add it to the list, you are missing some, but you should heed WIKI liabel issues..

Remember Cullen Kbb23, NO EXCEPTIONS — Preceding unsigned comment added by Proofplus (talk • contribs) 19:44, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

CUE Cullen Kbb23, I have the link for Cuban below. Please let it pass your RELIABLE SOURCES judgement meter, yes overlord ProofPlus Professional Researcher 19:46, 11 November 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Proofplus (talk • contribs)

MARK CUBAN "Stupidest idea"

Would like to add the Mark Cuban S "Stupidest Invention" comment but don't really know how to add link, can someone help me? Here is the link: http://www.americanwaymag.com/dallas-mavericks-internet-millionaire-mark-cuban — Preceding unsigned comment added by Proofplus (talk • contribs) 19:43, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

This shouldn't be added to the article. It is a passing mention, not in-depth coverage, and Mark Cuban has no expertise that I am aware of with regards to evaluating inventions in the computer technology area. Walter Mossberg is a much better source. Cullen Let's discuss it 20:31, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Cullen Kbb23 here is the issue with the libel in the record

Here is what I was referring to on the items you posted on Jovan "Controversial, poorly-sourced claims in biographies of living people should be deleted immediately."

I followed the Wiki policy and since they DO NOT allow that and the references were not what you said I deleted the two of your comments on that. Yes, he has the "Stupidest invention ever" and I gave you links there, but you can;t post what you psoted, its against wiki rules. Sorry but you or you two know better ProofPlus Professional Researcher 21:06, 11 November 2011 (UTC) (ProofPlus Professional Researcher 21:06, 11 November 2011 (UTC)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Proofplus (talk • contribs)

OPEN CALL FOR ASSISTANCE CUE CAT REAL FACTS

To all:

I presented links and facts relevant to the cue cat history. These keep getting undone but one key fact and I dont want to get into a war of edits with C.Fred bbb23 or Cullen. but the facts speak for themselves. Cue cat is a merged record, that means it covers the company, the invention, the inventor, the investors, the software, the app, the backend and the database. Here are NUMERIC FACTS:

WHY the RPX issue and license is REAL VALID AND IMPORTANT: On the article for cuecat the reference count are as follows: 13 references to cue cat as device 8 references to DigitalConvergence as company 22 references to the actual software and backend 12 references to the database actions

so, out of 55 references, 94% are about the software, company and database and YOU ASK WHY IS THE LICENSE IMPORTANT?

117 Patents and ONE is for CueCat the Device and 99.8% are about the software, backend and databsse functions and YOU ASK WHY THE LICENSE AND SUCH IS IMPORTANT TO THE RECORD?

So, FRED announced that the licensing of the IP and the subsequent roll out as an app that Microsost, Ebay and 100 others have licensed is important. Can this be real? I addded a comment about the CEO of Ebay John Donahoe and how they have 56,000,000 app downlaods of the scan app they have and have LICENSED from RPX (its a public fact) and he does not want to post it.

THIS IS AN ENCYLOPEDIA, we do NOT get to choose wich facts please use. NOW I can tell there are haters of and on cue cat, and ALL I have done is clean those UP BUT NOT DELETED, we have to do ALL FACTS, not just slective facts.

Come on FRED. This is an encylopedia, you can just pick and choose what are facts!!!!

Please help me! ProofPlus Professional Researcher 22:00, 11 November 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Proofplus (talk • contribs)

Nor can you synthesize facts to take the size of a patent library and the use of the patent library to infer that a current technology of the licensee is an offshoot of CueCat. —C.Fred (talk) 22:03, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Tell you what Fred, I am going to call RPX, and see if I can get a letter and I will post it here. Your view on this is not right but so be it. I will give you the prove you need other then the proof you already have. You are not here to JUDGE FACTS, this is here to put the facts as they are. Your wiggle around this is what give wiki a black eye. enjoyProofPlus Professional Researcher 22:09, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

And it still won't be a secondary source. —C.Fred (talk) 22:11, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

No, I'm not going to 'help'. You clearly don't understand how Misplaced Pages works. We aren't here to act as a forum for persons attempting to pursue some obscure battle regarding intellectual property rights of marginal significance to an article about an obsolete bar-code reader. If we are to have an article on the CueCat, it should be on topic. And the topic is the CueCat, not anything else. You asked for help, and it was given. Instead of thanks, we get a stream of hostility and accusations. Everything about your conduct suggests to me that your assertions to having no connection with the CueCat or it's parent company are bogus. Your editing style matches perfectly earlier 'contributors' to the article with the same agenda - I have no doubt in my mind that your claim not to have edited Misplaced Pages before is also bogus. Why should anyone help you? AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:13, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

FOR ALL THE CUE CAT HATE here is some love

In the reference record of Cue Cat bb23 cullen added links from eric celeste a local dallas reporter and competitor of the dallas morning news (so of course thy want the dallas news to look bad) those links were the slams.

What about the 7 year later announcement that cue cat lived and is now used by google (see google license of Cue cat patents) and he even states he uses it and was wrong.

http://frontburner.dmagazine.com/2008/02/01/google-performing-mouth-to-mouth-on-cuecat/

WHY NOT include this in the REAL unbiased HISTORY? ProofPlus Professional Researcher 22:07, 11 November 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Proofplus (talk • contribs)

Because the only connection I can draw is that they both involve putting bar codes all over the place. —C.Fred (talk) 22:09, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Malice

Please keep in mind that malice can transmogrify negative information into a ugly personal attack.. Care needs to be taken to note passion but not incorporate it. User:Fred Bauder Talk 02:01, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Point well taken. I agree that many of the comments in this article are quite extreme.Cullen Let's discuss it 02:36, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

I have apologized at WP:BLPN. Cullen Let's discuss it

Reference Citation verified

Hello, looked over this record and see that a ciitation added by Ron K, was cited as NOT used beacause it was a BLOG. However the aritcle on the blog does verifiy the record. Also, I see there are numerous blog citations for this article. So, seems all blogs, as long as they are not by cuecat (which they cannot be since the company is defunct ) is valid. Why the repeated undoing of just the confirmation of a reference? Technoratti (talk) 02:21, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Who are you, and why are you suddenly interested in this article?--Bbb23 (talk) 02:22, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

The blog does not verify the article, and it isn't a reliable source anyway. Please read WP:RS and WP:3RR. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:24, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

"Big Blue Baja: Travel, Food, Wine and Lifestyle in Baja California", which has been used as a reference by Ran Kurosawa and Technoratti, is a self-published tourism blog that has no credibility regarding technology and patent issues, and is unacceptable as a reliable source on Misplaced Pages. The material referenced from that blog comes directly from another blog, scancommerce.org, which is not a reliable, independent source, since it appears to be under the control of J. Jovan Philyaw, also known as J. Hutton Pulitzer, who is the inventor of the CueCat, and who has a clearcut interest in portraying that device in a favorable light.

Please be aware, Ran Kurosawa and Technoratti, that conflict of interest editing is "strongly discouraged" on Misplaced Pages.

I am in complete agreement with Bbb23 and AndyTheGrump in this matter. Please do not add any content to this article unless it is fully verified by reliable, independent sources. Cullen Let's discuss it 03:07, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Question on cue cat reference links and three edit warning from Bbb23

Hello, I added a citation reference on cue cat, which was valid. But it was undone and then I was warned by Bbb23 about 3 edits or blocked.

I see in the record, that Bbb23 makes numerous edits daily. Is there some level needed to be able to edit at the rate of Bbb23?

(cur | prev) 21:05, 12 November 2011‎ Bbb23(talk | contribs)‎ (17,334 bytes) (→Introduction: based on Spolsky's notability as a critic, added one sentence about his review) (undo) (cur | prev) 20:19, 12 November 2011‎ Bbb23(talk | contribs)‎ (16,951 bytes) (→See also: remove irrelevant articles) (undo) (cur | prev) 20:13, 12 November 2011‎ Bbb23(talk | contribs)‎ (17,064 bytes) (→Introduction: added tag - too much unsourced material in section) (undo) (cur | prev) 20:12, 12 November 2011‎ Bbb23(talk | contribs)‎ (17,021 bytes) (→Introduction: removed Spolsky paragraph - WP:SPS) (undo) (cur | prev) 20:10, 12 November 2011‎ Bbb23(talk | contribs)‎ m (17,701 bytes) (→Introduction: fixed cite) (undo) (cur | prev) 20:07, 12 November 2011‎ Bbb23(talk | contribs)‎ (17,811 bytes) (→Introduction: tweak wording and edited cites) (undo) (cur | prev) 20:03, 12 November 2011‎ Bbb23(talk | contribs)‎ (18,164 bytes) (→Introduction: rewording assertions to match sources) (undo) (cur | prev) 19:55, 12 November 2011‎ Bbb23(talk | contribs)‎ (18,595 bytes) (→Introduction: copy edits and removal of some editorialization) (undo) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Technoratti (talk • contribs)

Oh, here we go again. I didn't post a WP:3RR warning, as I just stated on your Talk page. However, you might want to read the policy for your own benefit.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:29, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Please read WP:3RR. It is a three revert rule, not a three edit rule. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:29, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

And although three reverts is a bright line beyond which a user usually gets blocked, one can get blocked for edit warring with fewer than three reverts. —C.Fred (talk) 02:50, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Leading colon

Surely the name began with a leading colon:, :CueCat. This New York Times article consistently presents it as :CueCat throughout, and presents the name of its maker as Digital:Convergence (with a colon separating the parts of the name) throughout.

Perhaps the article title can't begin with a colon, but shouldn't the rest of the article be accurate? Dpbsmith (talk) 21:16, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree that the name of the article should not have a leading colon. I disagree about using the colon stylization all the way through the article text. Instead, I think the reader should be told up front that the name was styled with a leading colon, and then the article text from that point on should be free from the leading colon. Binksternet (talk) 21:59, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

FWIW it seems it was also sometimes stylized with two colons, ":Cue:Cat". You see that on the cover of the users manual for example. Gjxj (talk) 13:37, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

According to MOS:CONFORM, text stylization or affectation can be mentioned in an article, but should not be adopted wholesale. Reify-tech (talk) 21:07, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on CueCat. 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) 07:17, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

New to editing and adding links HELP

While updating I posted an award that Cue Cat and it's CRQ Software was awarded. Granted I am new, but what did I post inaccurately. This is what I added under awards: 2001 CODiE Award Winner - Best Reference Tool :CRQ Technology, Digital: Convergence Corp. (CRQ - See Our Cue - Q Code Software Platform) This is what the SIIA website states: 2001 CODiE Award Winners Best Reference Tool

CRQ Technology, Digital: Convergence Corp.

Please help this new gal figure out how to do this correctly and this is a vary valid link update. Just as was my update to the security breech. Help SoftwareNerdTech (talk) 22:34, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

As Phil Bridger (talk · contribs) noted, this appears to be a marketing site, which may make it inappropriate for use as a reference. Is another source available for this information? Cheers. DonIago (talk) 14:44, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

The page in question is only a page of pasty winners for the year in question. There is NO links to marketing and in fact no links for even jumping off from any of the winners. NOTE: the site is the awards HISTORY ARCHIVE from the year 2001. Thus, this is part of the History and Awards for what is the very software which operated the cuecat. One did not work with the other. It is also relevant since the software is mentioned under (RECEPTION) section. Here is the link which was included https://www.siia.net/codie/Our-History/Past-Winners/2001-Winners ALL PLEASE LOOK at the added link and see is in NO WAY a marketing or promotional page but in fact a history page. Why is this difficult and is this how all simple edits are handled? SoftwareNerdTech (talk) 18:21, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

The web site of the awarder makes it abundantly clear that this award is given for marketing purposes rather than for genuine excellence, and that this is a "pay for play" award. As such it is totally meaningless for any non-marketing purposes, such as an encyclopedia. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:29, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

@Phil Bridger: then we may have a problem as we have Codie award which although a redirect discusses them and most editors seeing that would think they could be mentioned, I know I assumed that. Csn you fix the article in some way? Doug Weller talk 21:47, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

I'd rather not. I've debunked such claims quite a few times on Misplaced Pages and am getting tired of it. This page tells you pretty much all you need to know about the promotional status of these awards: "With a grand total of more than 75 different categories, you're sure to find several to meet your marketing/PR objectives!". Why is it that people slavishly follow such blatant marketing when it comes to anything to do with software, but if these were awards for tools in any other industry (Best claw hammer! Best Phillips screwdriver! Best hacksaw!) everyone would see through them. I worked in the software industry for several decades, but have now retired, and want to spend as little time as possible on related topics. I would also note that Codie award was deleted last year. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:20, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Sorry but Doug Weller - that is not what the pages states. In fact the Codie is " The CODiE Awards remain the only peer-recognized program in the content, education, and software industries" Those words are not found on the page real page of the awards not some long past obscure footnote. And the awards are not pay for play since they are 100% peer reviewed. So why the bias? Wiki shows top winners and yet no "pay to play" there - so why here? Here is the real site and it clearly states peer reviewed. How exactly is 1000 individuals peer reviewing the nominations an issue? Is not peer-reviewed considered the best of all? FOR REFERENCE: It's costs $400 to $600 for nomination of an Emmy Award to help offset costs of judging and shipping all the considerations around. Does that make it pay for play? See https://latimesblogs.latimes.com/awards/2011/03/entry-fees-how-much-it-costs-to-compete-for-emmys.html Also read here - are these pay for play? SNIP::: ″Entry and prize consideration. The Pulitzer Prize does not automatically consider all applicable works in the media, but only those that have specifically been entered. (There is a $75 entry fee, for each desired entry category.)″ It really looks like you might be trying hard to not allow this entry for reasons which are not valid... SoftwareNerdTech (talk) 23:43, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Just would like to know Phil Bridger would these also be pay to play and if so (since they all have nomination fees) why are the here? https://en.wikipedia.org/Pulitzer_Prize https://en.wikipedia.org/Emmy_Award

yes, I am new here, but this reason for continual undoing this addition is not valid and needs to be put back in. SoftwareNerdTech (talk) 23:46, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

@SoftwareNerdTech:, that "long past obscure footnote" is not at all obscure, being written on the web page about these awards published by the awarders themselves, is obviously not a footnote, and dates from well after CueCat received the award, so cannot be said to be "long past". I have to ask, because of your seeming determination to get this award into the article, and to create promotional content at Software and Information Industry Association, whether you have any conflict of interest here. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:06, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

@DougWeller I really have no idea how to "call on someone" to assist here. Could you look over what I provided and decide if this award citation is valid, so it keeps from being a redo/undo situation? SoftwareNerdTech (talk) 01:46, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

These discussions can take some time. There's no pressing reason the information needs to be in the article immediately, and there's WP:NODEADLINE. We should work to form a WP:CONSENSUS here before re-adding the material, given that concerns have been raised.

That said, if you feel you need the opinions of additional editors, you're welcome to contact the WikiProjects mentioned at the top of this page asking for more feedback on this issue (such a request should be worded neutrally). Personally I'm not sure whether the award is notable or not, but we should have a reasonable discussion regarding the matter rather than rushing to conclusions. DonIago (talk) 06:10, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Having now read the link Phil provided as well as the deletion discussion regarding the article for the award, I'm now inclined to agree that it should not be mentioned as it was determined that the award is non-notable. DonIago (talk) 06:17, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Therefore User:Doniago it would seem that you read and then decided it should "not" be mentioned since the award was none notable, therefore would it also stand to reason that this Wiki article would be as "non-notable" and then if the overall largest single governing body over software development is deem "not notable" then it would stand to reason that then ALL the top companies listed as winners as well SNIP ″Notable past winners include companies such as Adobe, BrainPOP, Google, McGraw-Hill Education, Jigsaw, Netsuite, Red Hat, Rosetta Stone, Salesforce.com, Digimind, Scribe Software, Vocus, WSJ.com, IXL Learning, itslearning, and more.″ then ALL their references need to be removed all well since this award - to you - is 'not notable"... Then once again, these top publications and their references should be removed as well since they wrongly reported these awards are the most important in the industry SNIP: ″Software Publishers Association hosted the "Excellence in Software Awards" ceremony, an annual black-tie event that The Washington Post and Los Angeles Times compared to the Academy Awards. ″ Thus Doug Weller talk could it be these two individuals are for some reason squatting on this for some weird reason and both backing each other up? How can this be valid all over the industry, wiki and in the articles about all those companies here on WIKI, but just not be valid on this one profile? Maybe someone helps who has some simple common sense? This award was noted before it seems to look over history. How does someone judge the software industry's most important award and peer recognition ceremony "not notable" ? SoftwareNerdTech (talk) 20:52, 24 November 2019 (UTC) Does this possibly expose an error in Misplaced Pages and the 500 plus articles which mention the Codie Award as a top Industry (the top industry award) and does that mean that all these files need to be systemically denied the statements in their profiles? look over these profiles and these are some powerful industry people.... I also think we may be called RACISTS if we start deleting when you see many of the winners of color and such. But hey, Phil and Donigao you might know better? SNIP: ″Encyclopædia Britannica Ultimate Reference Suite (category Editions of the Encyclopædia Britannica) Distinguished Achievement Award from the Association of Educational Publishers. Its predecessor, Britannica DVD, received Codie awards in 2000, 2001 and 2002 5 KB (280 words) - 20:05, 5 October 2019 Cambridge Semantics Cambridge Semantics named SIIA Codie award 2018 finalist. Cambridge Semantics named 2018 Gold Stevie® Award Winner for 'Big Data Solutions'. Cambridge 13 KB (947 words) - 08:10, 28 September 2019 Samanage users". SiliconAngle. Retrieved 29 March 2017. "SIIA Codie Awards - 2018 Winners". SIIA Codie Awards. Retrieved 8 November 2018. Miller, Ron. "Samanage 7 KB (629 words) - 11:42, 26 August 2019 Codie Prevost Codie Prevost' (born December 19, 1984) is a Canadian country music artist. He is a four time Canadian Country Music Association (CCMA) nominee and a 10 KB (381 words) - 02:21, 13 October 2019 Early Learning House (section Awards) "SIIA Codie Awards Past Winners – 1993". "SIIA Codie Awards Past Winners – 1996". "Software Industry Unites in Celebration for 1998 Codie Awards". 1990s 12 KB (1,054 words) - 16:00, 2 October 2019 Jtest (section Awards) Product Excellence & Productivity Awards 2007 Codie Winners Archived 2007-12-13 at the Wayback Machine 2005 Codie Winners Archived 2007-12-17 at the Wayback 5 KB (360 words) - 13:35, 12 September 2019 Monty Python's Complete Waste of Time Time one of 1996's top 50 CD-ROMs, and gave it a score of 4.5 out of 5. "1995 Codie Awards Winners". SIIA.net. Software & Information Industry Association 3 KB (280 words) - 18:09, 26 September 2019 ExploreLearning has been recognized with many educational awards, including the "Best K-12 Instructional Solution" Codie award from the Software and Information Industry 6 KB (448 words) - 12:46, 29 October 2019 Tableau Software (section Awards) cables, not the cables themselves". In 2008, Tableau was named a Codie award winner for "Best Business Intelligence Solution" by the Software and Information 15 KB (1,226 words) - 14:39, 22 November 2019 Mindbody Inc. (section Awards and recognition) "Winners - 2015 SIIA CODiE Awards". www.siia.net. Codie award. Retrieved 11 September 2016. "2015 Winners". Silicon Valley Business App Awards. Retrieved 1 November 13 KB (947 words) - 11:08, 30 September 2019 AppFolio (section Awards and Recognition) Technology Awards Presented". The Independent. Retrieved 27 March 2019. "SIIA Announces Business Technology Finalists for 2016 CODiE Awards". SIIA. Retrieved 17 KB (1,048 words) - 08:05, 6 October 2019 Jessica Caban (category American actresses of Puerto Rican descent) TV's first-ever Model Latina. She was awarded a $10,000 contract with Q Management and was featured in spreads of magazines. "Website". Jessica Caban. 3 KB (193 words) - 00:23, 12 November 2019 GoToMeeting (section Awards) Earn Prestigious Industry Awards for Software Excellence". Business Wire. June 8, 2016. "GoToMeeting Wins 2017 CODiE Award for Best Collaboration Solution 7 KB (547 words) - 16:08, 21 September 2019 Thinkin' Things (section Awards) news.google.com. Retrieved 2016-09-23. "SIIA Codie Awards Past Winners – 1994". "SIIA Codie Awards Past Winners – 1996". Thinkin' Things series at MobyGames 9 KB (747 words) - 16:25, 2 October 2019 Edsby (category Educational technology companies of Canada) 2019-03-25. "SIIA CODiE Award Winners - 2016". Software and Information Industry Association (SIIA). 2016. "SIIA CODiE Award Winners - 2017". Software 6 KB (446 words) - 19:40, 15 October 2019 Black Love (2017 TV series) (section Awards and nominations) created by filmmakers Codie Elaine Oliver and Tommy Oliver, featuring couples opening up about the joys, challenges and realities of love, marriage and romance 12 KB (301 words) - 17:15, 27 October 2019 BigMachines (category Articles with topics of unclear notability from September 2018) applications to these CRM systems. 2010 Codie award Winner - Best Business Productivity Solution 2010 Sales 2.0 Awards – Best Sales Enablement Program 2010 9 KB (633 words) - 10:29, 25 October 2019 Mike Perry (game developer) (category Place of birth missing (living people)) mikeyp.com. January 11, 2007. Retrieved January 9, 2010. "1995 CODiE award winners". Software and Information Industry Association. Archived from the 6 KB (605 words) - 10:59, 26 September 2019 View (previous 20 | next 20) (20 | 50 | 100 | 250 | 500)" SoftwareNerdTech (talk) 21:00, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

TL;DR. There also appears to be a lot of malformed stuff in here. My suggestion would be to clean it up and make it more concise if you'd like editors to pay attention. DonIago (talk) 04:13, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

CLEANED UP - Following your advice Doniago - Made some link edits today chasing down citations needed and was not logged in. Was me, found the legal documents where CueCat folks sent notice to hackers. Updated the citations needed and chased down one link which was supposedly referring to cuecat but was not part of the article on bankruptcy by CBS Marketwatch . Sorry still learning how to do all this. SoftwareNerdTech (talk) 22:42, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

References

https://www.siia.net/archive/codies/2015/pw_2001.asp
http://www.siia.net/codie/How-it-Works
https://en.wikipedia.org/Software_and_Information_Industry_Association
Cite error: The named reference Doniago was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
Cite error: The named reference Doug Weller was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
Cite error: The named reference Phil Bridger was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

Categories: