If you are new to the site and want to participate in the project, we are glad to have you here! This section is for questions that beginners have about annotating, reviewing documents, how the site works, and more.
1 Like
Hello!
While browsing around to look for common mistakes sites make (either intentionally or unintentionally), I found one thing I’m a bit confused by – the bad point of “The service refers users to external documents for more information.”
My site uses Cloudflare as a CDN, and they have their own privacy policy so I provide a link to their privacy policy so users can have full transparency. Similarly, I embed videos from Vimeo (using their DNT header to avoid as much as tracking as possible), but I still want folks to know this so I link to the Vimeo privacy policy too.
Based on “the service refers users to external documents for more information” being a bad point, I’m not really sure what the appropriate solution is here. I don’t really want to remove links to the external documents because that just hides the issue, and I’m not sure that copying their terms into mine is helpful either – and arguably not legal.
Is there an obvious solution here, or am I just overthinking this?
Thank you!
Paul
That’s a good question, thank you for bringing the issue up. I can see how this can be misleading. What are your thoughts if we changed the bad case of "The service refers users to external documents for more information” to “This service refers users to external documents for more information regarding their own terms”? And perhaps adding a positive case of “This service links to external documents of third-party sites they use”?
1 Like
If I understand you correctly this makes much more sense. I’m reading it as follows:
“This service refers users to external documents for more information regarding their own terms”
I guess this would be “we have lots of terms and conditions, and they are linked here, here, and here” – that seems bad, because you can end up with a spiderweb of links to read, as opposed to one straightforward document.
And perhaps adding a positive case of “This service links to external documents of third-party sites they use”?
Yes, that sounds sensible to me – I think it encourages transparency, and gives site users the chance to understand everything that is being presented.
Sorry to keep bombarding you with beginner questions, but my site’s privacy policy has now been reviewed (thanks, @justin! 
), and received a bad point: “This service uses third-party cookies for statistics.” (Terms of Service; Didn't Read - Phoenix)
I’m not contesting that, because as the privacy policy says “our CDN is Cloudflare, and they may include cookies with our pages to provide a better service”. However, does this mean then that no site using Cloudflare, Akamai or a similar content delivery network can receive an A grade?
1 Like
Misinformation. my bad
AFAIK one or two bad ratings (
) do not disqualify a service for the A rating, it’s the blocker rating which disqualifies () the service. But to your point, It was the only fitting point to me, as I have scrolled the case list for at least 5 minutes but haven’t found a proper case for it.
(Maybe we should create a new case "This service requires third-party cookies to work/performance reasons, etc.)
Edit: Text above is wrong
1 Like
If there is an update on a service's policies, what to do?
Just upload ("Overwrite") another Doc?
Or is there something more to that?
I was recently browsing the [Spotify Privacy Policy](https://www.spotify.com/us/legal/privacy-policy/) and comparing it to the [ToS;DR version](https://edit.tosdr.org/documents/66) and I realised it's outdated.
1 Like
Hi Dr_Jeff,
Good question! It’s supposed to be automatic, but it’s not running right now. I’ll try to find time to fix it during the next weeks.
2 Likes
Thanks mate. Please notify when fixed so I could get to work at it. 
1 Like
Btw how is a Point deleted?
(Shamefully, I got a lot of errors on an annotation process and feel bad for literally filling the system with tons of updates and then some. 
)
(I reassure you it hasn’t been, nor ever would be, my intention to spam.)
1 Like
Contributors can review a point again and set its status to declined.
Then it won’t show up in the annotation view again, making it kinda deleted for history purposes.
3 Likes
Is there a video of someone walking through a privacy policy and annotating stuff? I see some documents only have a few sentences annotated, when I tried annotating myself it felt like every sentence is important.
Perhaps a guide somewhere that I’m missing?
1 Like
A post was split to a new topic: Feedly outdated
I think I’m echoing the last post I see here from Seclusion6078, but I have searched the forums and can’t find the #wiki mentioned in this post: About the General category
I’m looking for something like a glossary of terms, walkthrough, or style guide so if I begin annotating a service I can do so in line with ToS;DR’s standards. Right now I’m not sure if I’m just supposed to go reading other summaries on the main site to learn via monkey see monkey do.
Guidance appreciated!
Hmmm I did leading as I went, you can link me some of your points here and I can comment on it / approved them. A video guide is a nice idea!
1 Like
Hello,
I was wondering if there were any plans to include more precise sources to each point made in the TL;DRs?
I was looking at Google’s one, found a point that made me want to go read the origin of it (“Your identity is used in ads that are shown to other users”), but the only way of doing it would be to manually search by myself in the ToS and Privacy Policy, as there are no indication of even which document or section of it the statement originates from.
Adding more precise sources for each statement would make fact-checking and updating points, and building trust with readers, much easier.
Thanks, have a nice day!
Hello there!
Our points are generated from cited text from the legal documents we’re able to crawl. You can search for them in the docs.
That being said, you’re right, we’re currently having issues with showing the cited text when clicking its source, and we’re currently trying to get it to work once again.
I believe it used to work back then before my hiatus (2020-2021), so we could be able to get it working later on.
I see. Yes, it’d be nice to have that functionality back, good luck fixing it.
Thanks for your fast response ^^
Google - ToS;DR when you are on a service page, you can click the pencil icon on the right of each point and it will lead you to our editing tool. It shows you the quote from the legal document of that point.The Link below the quote takes you to our crawled version of the document. The link on the top right with the label “source” takes you to the specific document on the services website.
On our crawled version most points are highlighted like in the screenshot
Is that what you were looking for?