Talk:360 Secure Browser

I removed the statement that the browser's usage share was in the 2-7% range in Jan. 2011, as StatCounter didn't detect the browser correctly then. http://gs.statcounter.com/#desktop-browser-CN-weekly-201218-201237 shows, that StatCounter began detecting the browser correctly on July 1, 2012. I removed the statement, that as of November 2014, the 360 Secure Browser was the fifth most popular browser in the United States. The reason is, that Opera was the fifth most popular browser in the U.S. in November 2014.^[1] The 360 Safe Browser was the fifth most popular browser in the U.S. between May 2013 and October 2014.^[2] --K1812 (talk) 10:04, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Repeating one source and ignoring another is not an improvement. TEDickey (talk) 10:23, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

As far as I am aware, this browser doesn't have identifiable user-agent, this might be why the numbers are off. Also you cannot download Chrome in China, so some of the Chrome numbers might be because browsers like this one masquerading as Chrome. --Voidvector (talk) 23:24, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 360 Secure Browser. 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/20150723081728/http://www.digital-dd.com/qihoo-browser-war/ to http://www.digital-dd.com/qihoo-browser-war

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:18, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

I had a look at the source. It belongs to IDF which literally any private hobbyist can publish a report without needing proof. It’s basically like zenodo but for community for It hobbyists. The issue is whether such a report is verified or peer-reviewed otherwise it could just an unprofessional smear campaign yet promoted as a professional regulated body doing an investigation, when that is not the case. I think the section needs to be clarified on who actually makes that independent study and what proof. Otherwise it is misleading to readers unfamiliar with idf, which even I can publish without need of some evidence or concrete proof49.180.148.101 (talk) 23:28, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

It is a browser made by the same company. Several Windows XP related sites have confirmed its compatibility and is linked on many sources. 94.175.6.205 (talk) 14:18, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

So cite those third party sources and either add a section on it here in this article if it is a version of this subject, or, if it is a different product, then start a new article on it, but you can't just drop it here with no sources, see WP:PROVEIT. - Ahunt (talk) 14:30, 28 March 2021 (UTC)