Talk:Dot-com bubble

Older comments

Dot-com, Dot-com boom, Dot-com bubble, Dot-compost. One sign of a great thinker is the ability to synthesize. Wouldn't one article be better? Barely surviving after the Dot-com bust, yours, Ortolan88 12:08 Jul 30, 2002 (PDT)

Please write it, O Great Thinker! --Ed Poor

Believe it or not, I am not prone to hog in on other people's territory. If these hang around awhile without much change, I might do it, but not when they're so fresh and new. I wrote to stimulate the anonymous author to thought. I'm miles behind on Huckleberry Finn and Knots, just to name two.

If I ever get another job, wikipedia is in the weeds! Ortolan88

your problems are Obama's problems  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.163.209.189 (talk) 11:59, 21 May 2015 (UTC) 

Bookends

I always thought the dot-com bubble started with the Netscape IPO in August 1995 and ended when the markets peaked due to the concerns about the Microsoft Anti-trust ruling in April 2000. Granted, the actual start and stop of the dot-com bubble are fuzzier than that, but these two events nicely frame this period. Most named time periods are usually delimited well defined events. Perhaps the article should place more emphasis on these two events?

• I would agree with this to some extent but the bookends are probably more 1997 - 2000, beginning with the famous Greenspan warning against "irrational exuberance" in late (November) 1996. Somehow the Telecom Bubble and the dot-com bubbles are being merged in human memory and recall... One was still riding high when the other peaked and crashed. They were separate events with separate repercussions. Stevenmitchell 12:01, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

• I disagree most hardily and I seem to be the only person on the planet that would like a little better description of what a true bubble is, and why this one happened. I am not terribly interested in conspiracy theories but I find the timing of this "bubble" which actually starts with the Newt Gingrich tax cuts on capital gains in 1997 and then gets popped by the (P)residential campaign of Bush and Cheney running thier Republican mouths about the "fake economy" and the very enemic increase in interest rates from the Fed (not till late 1999 did the Fed get serious at all) a bit unsetteling. I am not deaf to the Y2K part of this rise in tech stocks and a subsequent fall. But financial speculation is what makes true bubbles. The money had to come from somewhere. Please actually __**LOOK**__ at the graph and tell me when the __**BUBBLE**__ really starts. It sure as hell isn't in 1995 and it may not be in 1997. The __**REAL**__ bubble seems to be from late 1998 to March 2000. The rest of that rise is normal and predictable based on a decent tax system that was put in place in 1993. (note that there is a 2 year lag in most tax/fiscal actions but that the shortening of capital gains holding periods may be an exception). The erosion of Glass-Steagall (which kept security dealers from working around margin requirements) started long before the actual repeal as the Fed looked the other way. "Demise of Glass-Steagall"

"Perhaps the final event that signaled the impending repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act was the merger between Citicorp and Travelers Group (forming Citigroup Inc.) in 1998. The merger was approved by the Federal Reserve subject to the requirement that Citigroup divest its insurance underwriting and other subsidiaries within two years, but most analysts argued that the merger was completed in anticipation of the eventual repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act." --The Trucker (talk) 01:25, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

New sections

This article could use a couple additional sections.

1. the business "theory" of the dot-com boom: mindshare is everything, physical assets and experience are irrelevant; old-economy companies are obsolete; technology is inherently marketable; growth is more important than profits, etc.
2. the aftermath: mass layoffs (with security guards); empty office space; domain name buy-ups; return to traditional business wisdom (can be integrated with the "Secondary effects" section)

I'd love to write them myself, but I was way out on the fringe of the boom. So I didn't see these events closely enough to write confidently. Gazpacho 02:14, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Work section

What is meant by "battleground of intergenerational warfare"? warfare between the execs and the employees? between the tech employees and the operations employees?

"digital sweatshops / slave-driven" / underclass: the boom had a "programmer-hero" myth that made it seem worthwhile to put extraordinary effort into a company. There was the sense that your work was going to change the world, and that as a small company employee you had to make sure you pulled your weight. Certainly after the capital dried up, managers got a lot more serious about pushing employees past their limit, but that was the aftermath rather than the boom itself. The article could also use a mention of the use of stock-based compensation to avoid paying a full salary. Anyway, the three terms listed need to go; they're a mockery of real slavery and people who work in real sweatshops, as opposed to air-conditioned cubicles with web access and padded chairs. Gazpacho 07:40, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I have toned down the disputed section, hopefully without changing the intended meaning of the original contributor. If you feel that fixes the problem, please remove the disputed tag. If it does not fix it, then try making the required edits yourself (or be more specific about the nature of the problem and I will come back to it). mydogategodshat 17:49, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Successful dot-coms

I wanted to suggest this here before editing the article:

• Removing MSN - its just a subsidiary of Microsoft.
• Adding Hotmail - although it is also a subsidiary of Microsoft, it was founded as an independent company and later sold to them.
• Add ICQ (Mirabilis) maybe?

-- Chuq 9 July 2005 08:43 (UTC)

ICQ does not run on a domain name idea, as "dot com" in this case implies. Dot com refers to the world wide web and its http protocol more than to any other protocol.

By the time of the dot-com bubble bursting, Hotmail had been owned by Microsoft for nearly three years. For these reasons, I oppose the suggested changes. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 16:10, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

If it was created during the bubble forming, I think it counts. Maybe it also counts because of why it was bought by Microsoft... --CCFreak2K 09:29, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Celtic Tiger

Probably a sentence or two linking to Celtic Tiger would be appropriate in some section. The dot-com bubble was quite linked to some of the Celtic Tiger runaway growth in Ireland in the late 1990s.

I'm not sure where to add this such that it follows in context from other text. In fact, there doesn't seem to be much about the worldwide effects of the dot-com bubble, other than noting the 3G licences nonsense in Europe.

Incidentally, after about 3-4 tighter years (2003 was grim and gloomy in the IT job market), the IT boom has come back in Ireland thanks to Google and Amazon (and the fact that many thousands of IT jobs, at Dell, Intel, IBM, Analog Devices, etc., never went away).

zoney ♣ talk 15:58, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Use of "dot com boom" as an expression: (idea for the main article) Some articles have described certain technologies like surveillance technologies, keyboards with LCD keytops and the like as being "dot com boom" technologies where companies invest in start-up companies that develop or have "on paper" these technologies. The start-ups who have the technologies may make up "cardboard" prototypes or rough "proof-of-concept" models of the technologies or simply show 3-D computer-graphic images of the technologies.

It has been seen that we could end up with companies making these concepts but never seeing them off the ground as a proven device and could see companies go to the wall with overinvestment in various technologies.

With regards,

--SimonMackay 09:51, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

The could-have-beens

What about Altavista, Lycos, Excite, and Ask.com, all of which have either failed to grab, or more recently lost, market share. Would we count these into the dot-com bubble, or is their demise a later development not suited for this article? - Samsara (talk • contribs) 16:13, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually they are directly related to the dot-com bubble but for some reason the list of companies current as of September 2011 are essentially all inconsequential companies other than Worldcom. It seems that almost all of the contributors to this article don't have the slightest clue as to what occurred and deleted information through edits over time that was pertinent to the article. This article is now entirely useless... Would these have been newbies to the technology era? Stevenmitchell (talk) 18:40, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Proper title for this article? Proposal...

The discussion of this being a featured article candidate got me thinking of a reason it may not be very clear about what its material is: this article can't seem to decide whether it's about dot-com companies, or the stock market dot-com bubble.

I'd like to propose that this article should be named 'Dot-com stock market bubble' or 'Dot-com bubble'. If its focus is on the bubble itself (as many articles that link here seem to think, including Stock market bubble itself, it will provide a frame of reference within which to write; it's pretty clear that this article is the result of merging articles about the boom and the companies that were a part of it.

What do you think? Skybunny 17:19, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Dot-com bubble already redirects here; in addition, the article refers to the phenomenon more generally, including the successful companies, rather than the eventual burst, which the "bubble" alludes to. I oppose your proposal. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 17:41, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Here's what I see as the problem. 'Dot-com' means two things at once. I believe the article is fundamentally flawed because it is forced to mean two things at once; even the introduction points out that the phrase 'Dot-com' means both companies and bubble, and the article frequently switches focus between the two. I believe it has timeline problems because companies run within their own timelines, and the boom overlaps several.

If we make the article about the 'Dot-com bubble', it can discuss the companies inside that context, and it is my belief that the bubble is the main reason companies like Pets.com are discussed in the first place. This change doesn't have to be made, but I suspect it will be more difficult for this article to reach featured status if it can't decide what its primary focus is. I believe it's easier to write about the companies in the context of the boom, and not vice-versa. For that matter, the bubble can also talk about the successful companies, just as RCA was a success story of the radio bubble. I don't know if this is convincingly stated, but it's my reason for bringing it up. Thanks... Skybunny 18:01, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

So really you are talking about splitting the article, rather than renaming it? - Samsara (talk • contribs) 18:36, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

What I am trying to propose is making the name and thrust of the article the 'Dot-com bubble', which provides excellent reason to discuss the companies (failures and successes) that were a part of it, because it refers to that period of time in the market. An introductory paragraph might look like this - please pardon the quick engineering:

The dot-com bubble refers to approximately four years of time (1997 - 2001) in which stock markets in Western nations had their value increase rapidly, most significantly in the technology and new Internet sector. A combination of rapidly increasing stock prices, individual speculation in stocks, and widely available venture capital created an exuberant environment in which many new businesses dismissed standard business economics, in favor of increasing market share at the expense of the bottom line. The period was marked by the founding (and in many cases, eventual spectacular failure) of a group of new Internet based companies, dot-coms. The bursting of the dot-com bubble marked the beginning of a several year recession in Western nations.

The preceding paragraph is correct and after looking through the current article I see that it speaks only of events after 1998. I have therefore altered the beginning date in the first sentence of the article to 1998. I suggest that this picture is a more informative graphic that illustrates the NASDAQ bubble in relation to the DOW and the S&P. I do not know how to substitute it into the article.--The Trucker (talk) 06:28, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was moved and dot-com redirected to .com. —Nightstallion (?) ^{Seen this already?} 13:16, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Requested move to Dot-com bubble

Some comments on this matter appear above, in the previous topic.

Survey

• Support Dot-com bubble appeared to be essentially a short lived article that Stock market bubble is today. It is my belief that this article makes more sense discussing the Dot-com (stock market) bubble, and can discuss the Dot-com phenomenon and companies within. Skybunny 01:23, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Support, as article appears to be about the dot-com bubble. David Kernow 08:18, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Support move to Dot-com bubble (or anything else more appropriate than Dot-com).Ewlyahoocom 21:07, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

Of course, that would leave open the question of what will happen at Dot-com? Redirect to .com? A merge of our list Dot-com#List_of_well-known_dot-coms with List_of_miscellaneous_commercial_failures#Internet_dot-bombs, etc.? Or simply leave it as the redirect to the new page? Ewlyahoocom 21:07, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

If and when this gets moved, I'd say Dot-com could be redirected to .com. That article seems even to expect that that's exactly what's happening - then mentions the bubble with a link back here. (We may even want to edit some of the articles that link here to make clear what this one is about.)

I like the idea of not distinguishing between successes and failures - and probably narrowing the definition of a Dot-com company to those funded by venture capital, or spun off into independant businesses. To give you an idea, I'm about to remove MSN. As far as I can tell, it's always been a subsidiary of Microsoft, and was never much of a risk for them.

Then what you could have is an alphabetical list by name and fate. Companies large enough to have their own article is probably a good bar to reach for. When that list becomes unwieldy, it can have its own article: List of Dot-com companies, which can be linked to by both Dot-com bubble and List of miscellaneous commercial failures as "Main article:". When that list gets huge, it could be sorted by industry. What do you think? Skybunny 13:11, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Telecom Bubble

I'm reading articles like this http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0FGI/is_7_14/ai_106651520 that keep talking about the Telecom Bubble like it was bigger then the Dot-com bubble. Is it detailed at all in wikipedia? Mathiastck 18:05, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

• For some reason it does not have its own separate entry and I am unsure where it might be except under entries for Enron (which was related to it and partially responsible for it) - they were one of the more advanced Telcos in the U.S., Global Crossing, Worldcom, Tyco and the problems of Qwest and a number of other U.S. companies including DSL providers. However, to do so will require some effort as the Telecom, Telecommunications and operating telephone companies entries are about as well organized as the finances of the defunct telecom companies of the early 2000's. In order to reorganize these entries into a useable state, a bit of effort will have to be made - perhaps after colleges let out for the semester this can be accomplished... Stevenmitchell 12:44, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Youtube?

Although Youtube is a well-known dot.com company, it really has nothing to do with the subject of this article - the dot.com bubble. Wouldn't it be better if the section at the end was a list of notable dot.coms from the bubble era, both successful and failed? Venicemenace 01:45, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

One thing to note - this article is not about dot-com companies in general, and never was. It is about the dot-com bubble, so, I agree, it should be specific to the era. I'm going to try to change the section title and point people elsewhere if they want to add 'MySpace' and whatnot. Skybunny 17:03, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

• I wholeheartedly believe that this article and its contents should ONLY be about those dot-com companies that either led the bubble or helped it to implode... for dot-com companies as a list there should be another entirely separate entry and/or category for dot-com companies as a listing... This article is specifically about "the Bubble". The Telecom Bubble should have its own entry somewhere else, probably under "Telecom Bubble" and the two events should not be confused... Later dot-com companies have absolutely nothing to do with this event... Stevenmitchell 12:20, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Terminology

Why is 'bubble' not in the terminology? I assume were not talking about a bubble made of fairy liquid and water... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 131.111.8.97 (talk) 16:59, 15 January 2007 (UTC).

It is. The very first paragraph says The Dot-com bubble was a speculative bubble...which explains what a 'bubble' is in this context. Skybunny 17:07, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Dotpocalypse?

Does a nickname like that really belong in an encyclopedia? At the very least, it seems very unprofessional in the article: "(aka the DOTPOCOLYPSE)". 65.19.65.85 18:16, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

List in general and Internet Brands in specific

As IB (which didn't even use the name at the time, it was CarsDirect.com) was privately held through the dot.com bubble and survived, I don't really see why it's listed. I'd suggest the list be limited to a) dot coms that IPO'ed and went bankrupt by 2001 and b) dot coms that were sold at high prices by 2001. Jpatokal 08:20, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

It's mistake to mention Bubble 2.0, at most should be Bubble 2.0?

There is no such thing as Bubble 2.0, the idea of mentioning the Bubble 2.0 as a established fact is a clear mistake and it is misleading BBC's quoted article: "Has the dotcom boom returned?"

However, there are a number of differences between the first internet boom and the current one, not least the fact that the companies that survived - such as eBay, Yahoo, and Amazon - tended to dominate their market niche. " "The second key difference with the late 1990s is that companies now have a model of how to make money from the internet - and that model is based on advertising." "Finally, the role of the stock market is very different in the current boom. "

Business Week article: Bubble 2.0? http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/nov2006/tc20061108_556422.htm?campaign_id=rss_daily "Venture investments in Web 2.0 companies certainly aren't high enough to push funding back to bubble levels"

The Financial Times article: Bubble 2.0? http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/c81136ba-f747-11db-86b0-000b5df10621.html "With no such wider ramifications, the current boom could well be just another of the periodic waves of euphoria that washes through Silicon Valley. It is the sort of boom-bust cycle that locals face with remarkable equanimity" —Preceding unsigned comment added by EconomistBR (talk • contribs) 06:01, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

VA Linux

I think that the section of notable dot-com companies should include VA Linux, who went public on December 9, 1999, opening at $30 and closing at $320 on that same day. This was and is the most "successful" IPO to date, and it is the pinnacle of what dot-com IPOs attempted to achieve. Of course, the company lost almost all its value shortly thereafter and was at $0.54 by July 24, 2002. The Wikipedia article on VA Linux calls this "a classic example of the dot-com stock market bubble", so I think it's appropriate for inclusion here. As someone who lived "through" the dot-com bubble, VA Linux was as I remember it the "straw that broke the camel's back", and highly relevent to this article. 118.90.1.169 (talk) 23:06, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Warren Buffett

I added a link documenting Warren Buffett's forewarnings about the bubble. No big deal, but I think it's fair to mention that at least one highly qualified investor saw the bubble for what it was. L'omo del batocio (talk) 15:59, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was not moved per discussion (non-admin closure). PeterSymonds | talk 16:34, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Name

This article should be called the "Dot-com boom", not the Dot-com bubble. Depending on your Political "views". It is based that this violates Wikipedia's "Neutral Point of View" Policy. thanks. Dwilso 05:45, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

A "boom" is a period of strongly rising prices. A "bubble" is a period of strongly rising prices followed by even more rapidly falling prices. That prices fell rapidly in 2000 is a matter of recorded fact, not political view. Maproom (talk) 07:58, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

You are incorrect, the term "bubble" is never used by economist, they actually prefer to say "boom". Second of all, how do you explain the fact, that the economy sustained 1-3% growth during 2000-2002. Dwilso 08:48, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Maproom, the term boom is a period of strong rise in prices (population, production etc...) which is not followed by a sharp decline in prices. Maproom also correctly points out that a bubble is necessarily followed by a period of strong price depreciation.

Hence boom and bubble have completly different meanings and every bubble requires a boom.

Dwilso, I really appreciate you showing concern for this article but Paul Krugman, an economist and columnist for The New York Times can be heard using the term bubble repeatedly on this Youtube video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qo4ExWEAl_k

Wikipedia itself recognizes the term bubble as an encyclopedic one in the article Economic bubble, which says:

"Both the boom and the bust phases of the bubble..."

Lastly, it's indisputable the fact the the Dot-com bubble existed. It wiped out $5 trillion in wealth in just over 2 years.

One other thing, the title for this article was agreed upon on 18 April 2006 (check this discussion page).

⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ Talk 17:46, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose any move here. "Dot-com bubble" is a very common phrase to refer to the period. Referring only to the boom would leave out the reference to the mighty collapse of 2001. Bssc81 (talk) 09:08, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose, it's a bubble, and it bursted. This is a common name for that time. Epson291 (talk) 22:50, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose while I don't agree with the above reasoning that because the name was decided before it can't shift, I also think there should be a reason for the shift. The common name, rightly or wrongly, is Dot Com Bubble. Narson (talk) 13:55, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Worst websites

What is the logic of redirecting from worst websites to this article? ~ thinking-ape ~ (talk) 04:41, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

• There probably isn't any formidable logic or even association behind it...Stevenmitchell (talk) 20:10, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Mixed Metaphor

"The Dot-com bubble crash wiped out $5 trillion in market value of technology companies from March 2000 to October 2002."

Bubbles don't crash, they burst. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.11.41.80 (talk) 23:26, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Dot com Crash

This article is innacurate. There was a dot-com Crash about 1999- or 2000. I was there; suddenly everyone wanted cellphones and our (Harris DTS)landline switches weren't nearly as desirable. There was a huge lay off with us and others doing telecom work, like Fibre Optics, etc. Be fair and mention this. If there had been a "boom" in 1999-2000, I'd have been working a few more years.70.171.235.197 (talk) 14:31, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

See webmasterhistory.com

copied from the article:

Tina Landrith-Mills: I developed my first Internet Company in 1997, OTVnet.com which later became Digital Bridge through acquistion. OTVnet was the first Union Internet Company signatory with the I.B.E.W. under the sound and communication agreement. I sold OTVnet and later started IAMTECH.com which built dot com business and was acquired. I then went to work at a dot com in the Silicon Valley called Charitableway.com which failed. I believe we are on the verge of a second dot com era and believe in there are lessons to be learned from our first attempt at dot coms. I am interested in helping collect these records of our history that sunk over night like the Titanic. There were many great ideas that off the ground in venture capital financing and these ideas lay dorminant like a patent waiting for the market. Please visit http://www.webmasterhistory.com to leave your dot com record and tell us of your experience.

CRETOG8(t/c) 23:23, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Local Impact and Gentrification

Many of these dot.com companies were in the San Francisco Bay Area and Silicon Valley. There is no discussion of the local social impact, or a local perspective. Would this be an appropriate addition to this article? I don't see any discussion of the social impact, generally. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cleshne (talk • contribs) 18:58, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

• Yes, why not? I think it would add to what currently is largely a superficial and misleading account by people who were not there and have virtually no insight as to what occurred.Stevenmitchell (talk) 04:28, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Bubble Growth, further explanation needed.

"The low interest rates in 1998–99 helped increase the start-up capital amounts."

It seems like interest rates were relatively high during 1998-99 (http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/h15/data/Annual/H15_PRIME_NA.txt). This statement needs elaboration. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.177.174.181 (talk) 17:14, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Interest rates were in fact low by historical standards. You cannot compare the current depression-era rates with the rates historically applied by the Federal Reserve. During the Reagan era rates went as high as the teens... What in fact occurred that escalated the Bubble were the 3 crises of the late 1990s that Alan Greenspan responded to by increasing financial liquidity... However, the attribution of the increase in capital availability based on low interest rates would have to be supported by some form of research evidence, of which I am sure some exists... Stevenmitchell (talk) 18:50, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Advertising

Why not a section on advertising? All the dot-com bubble was about websites selling ads. That's it. Nothing else.

There was no "high-technology" involved. There was no 'lofty' aspirations of PhD or M.Sc. intelligentsia creating fantastic new science.

No, it was base, animalistitc private enterprise: advertising.

That's what the dot-com bubble was all about. Entrepreneurs pretending that they were all into programming and C++-coding and all that crap ... but in reality, it was all about the same old crap that the mercantile system has been pushing for 2,000 years: advertising.

Sales. Marketing. Promotion. Snake-oil salesmen. "A sucker born every minute."

All the crap and garbage about websites and coding and scripts and CSS style-sheets and all that malarkey ...

... it means nothing.

All that it means is to sell advertising.

Ok?!

'nuff said.

Thank you.
--Atikokan (talk) 04:12, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

You might want to re-read the article again, (and the references). FFMG (talk) 11:17, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Pros and Cons

Government was higly affected.Economies collapsed — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.143.226.21 (talk) 05:59, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Dot-com bubble. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110927065603/http://www.isp-planet.com/news/freei_bankrupt.html to http://www.isp-planet.com/news/freei_bankrupt.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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} 23:54, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Plagiarism

hey guys, it seems much of the companies significant to the bubble section is plagiarised from this book[1]. cheers. Spencerk (talk) 14:16, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Dot-com bubble. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120106045040/http://www.imaa-institute.org/statistics-mergers-acquisitions.html to http://www.imaa-institute.org/statistics-mergers-acquisitions.html#TopMergersAcquisitions_Worldwide
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110927065603/http://www.isp-planet.com/news/freei_bankrupt.html to http://www.isp-planet.com/news/freei_bankrupt.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130606215432/http://www.businessweek.com/2000/00_14/b3675112.htm to http://www.businessweek.com/2000/00_14/b3675112.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081201075305/http://www.xcelera.com/investor4.html to http://www.xcelera.com/investor4.html#q2

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) 02:01, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Individuals significantly affected by...

Is there any reason to have this list? There's no refs and no reason given for why these people are on the list. Volunteer1234 (talk) 00:27, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

I deleted it. Maybe someone could write a prose section about the important people? Volunteer1234 (talk) 03:16, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Dot-com bubble/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Cerebellum (talk · contribs) 10:01, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello, I'll be reviewing this article. --Cerebellum (talk) 10:01, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

@PhotographyEdits: Hey there, I notice that you have not edited this article in the past. Nothing wrong with that, what I'd like to do though is propose a few preliminary changes, if you can make those for me within the next week it will demonstrate that this is not just a drive-by nomination and I'll happily conduct a full review :) --Cerebellum (talk) 10:58, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

1. There is a "which" tag in the second paragraph of "the bubble", also a "page needed" tag in the third paragraph.
2. Two paragraphs in "bursting of the bubble" do not have citations, for a GA I think every paragraph should have at least one. Same with second paragraph of "Aftermath" and first of "Legacy".
3. Notable companies: What are your thoughts on this section? I'm thinking it should be moved to Dot-com company, it seems more relevant to that article than this one. It will hurt this article's chances at GA because many of the bullet points don't have refs, and the MOS prefers prose over lists in articles (MOS:USEPROSE). I'm open to a discussion if you disagree. --Cerebellum (talk) 10:58, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello @Cerebellum: I will try to find those sources for the text that needs a citation. About the notable companies, to me it seems fine to move them to the Dot-com company. PhotographyEdits (talk) 13:20, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

@PhotographyEdits: Thank you for moving the companies and adding those references! Will you be able to knock out the two maintenance tags and the last couple of references? --Cerebellum (talk) 01:12, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Alright, I am going to go ahead and fail this article. It has been a week. Aside from the three issues noted above I think this article fails criterion #3, broadness. It does not have enough detail, particularly on the macroeconomic reasons for the bubble. If you look at Japanese asset price bubble there are 5400 words of prose, and Black Monday (1987) has 3700 words. This article only has 2100 words, it's not enough to really explain what happened. It mentions that interest rates were low but not why they were low. There is more detail at Greenspan put that might be relevant: However, the collapse of Long Term Capital Management in 1998, which coincided with the 1997 Asian Financial Crisis, led to such a dramatic expansion of the Greenspan Put that it created the Dot-com bubble. According to that article, the Fed was also buying treasuries and lending money to banks (repurchase agreements). That article is pretty biased idk if that truly caused the bubble, I just think this article needs to be fleshed out a bit more. --Cerebellum (talk) 10:45, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Couple more suggestions for improvement:

• "Bursting of the bubble" has many short paragraphs of one sentence, I would combine into full paragraphs.
• Article mentions Super Bowl ads by dotcom companies several times. Is that really an important metric? --Cerebellum (talk) 10:50, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Sadly I was too busy with other things last week. Thanks for the comments anyway @Cerebellum:, I'll add these things before doing a future nomination. PhotographyEdits (talk) 11:11, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Sounds good :) --Cerebellum (talk) 11:14, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

The stated percentage drop doesn’t make sense

According to the second paragraph, “the NASDAQ composite stock market index rose 800%, only to fall 740% from its peak by October 2002.” That’s impossible. Even if the index had fallen to 0 (which I’m sure didn’t happen), the percentage reduction would have been only 100. Giwolde (talk) 01:01, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

New article

I know you're going to tell me I'm old for saying this, but we need a new article that says "the streaming services bubble", a business where big-tech and majors lose BILLIONS of dollars in content and intellectual property, to receive "a few measly cents". Netflix, this is all your fault and the day you go bankrupt, I will drink the most expensive wine in existence. Soybender8 (talk) 00:54, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

And yet despite all that, Netflix won the streaming wars.213.230.87.98 (talk) 11:56, 21 November 2024 (UTC)