![]() | This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. |
"...they have come under heavy fire for indexing methods..." - Is there any source for this statement? I have not found anything that suggests this to be true.
This "carbon free stuff" is just their attempt to market themselves better - for a seach engine it is *absolutely* irrelevant.
The environmental policy is an important issue for many of Picsearch users, and it is important for Picsearch as well as many other companies who take social responsibility seriously.-- Carl Sarnstrand 10:16, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Competitors and alternatives to Picsearch are displayed under image search.-- Carl Sarnstrand 10:16, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
I have no problem with what you have added about the environmental issues, so please don't misunderstand. What I am concerned with is all these other parts that I will now list:
The burden of neutrality is yours. It's not my job to tell you how to write your article, and, basically, I don't really care enough to think about it that hard. I could go over it word for word and say exactly why it sounds like an advert, but the thing is it's a more general feeling I get rather than a specific "it's because of this one sentence here" type of thing. --
Ceas webmaster
16:52, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
I have started to make some minor edits adding sources. It will take some time. I will try to be as adequate and neutral as possible. --
Carl Sarnstrand
09:47, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Now I have done a first revision of the text and added references to every statement in the text. -- Carl Sarnstrand 14:57, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
You've taken care pretty much of all of my concerns, but it still looks like an advertisement to me. Also, the fact that most the links to the article are from Picsearch's own website make it heavily POV. I'm going to bing a few other places and try to get some other people to look at this, and if they think it's fine, I'll think it's fine too. -- Ceas webmaster 16:36, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Ceas webmaster asked me to join the discussion here. First, let me applaud Ceas webmaster for polite and judicious handling of this. So often people rant about this kind of thing. (Of course, Carl Sarnstrand is to be applauded also for cooperating.)
I personally think it is good for both Wikipedia and companies when companies write articles on themselves so long as the proper style is maintained. This kind of article supplies information to the users, which is a major purpose of Wikipedia. However, advertisements in any encyclopedia destroys its trustworthiness in the eyes of its users and definitely to be avoided.
I do think there are some problems here, but most of the content can be saved if we rearrange it. Here are my observations:
-- Whiteknox 18:36, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
I agree with these points. Perhaps more citations from non-Picsearch websites could be found. Fmccown 16:22, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
I like the idea of being thorough and just. Even though it took me quite a while to assemble all the references I think that Ceas webmaster had some good points. The old article wasn't really good. I have now rewritten it completely and it looks much better.
The language now sounds more like an encyclopedia and not so much as a advertisement:
It is true that a lot of references goes to Picsearch own website. There are two reasons:
It is true that the article contains few critical issues about Picsearch.
Picsearch is not a highly controversial company. Picsearch is advanced technology developer and provider, whose partners are more interesting. I would like to point out one semi-controversial facts:
-- Carl Sarnstrand 20:32, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm commenting on this article as Ceas webmaster asked me to do so...
But following some simple guidelines could change this article to a well written one... I'm throwing my two cents on those here...
with some light thrown on this area. Addition of technical information (not intellectual property related... every info should be attributed. WP:ATT) may be a good choice for making this article more encyclopedic. This addition should be similar to the PageRank content of Google Search page.
Club together coverage and relevancy. Club together, family friendliness and environment friendliness into one section. and
I'll try may be today or tomorrow to do some of these... Meanwhile, be bold and do them.
Mugunth 04:27, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
I've edited some of the copy to tone it more to encyclopaedia style. But I think part of the problem is that a lot of the content probably is in too great a depth for wikipedia. Some of this could be compressed into s section called product information perhaps? Saganaki- 06:57, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
To Caes webmaster: I've made some changes to the article... I feel we can remove the {{advert}} tag from the article.. Anyway, as you added that tag, please verify the article and remove it if you feel so... Regarding accuracy of the article, I'm not very sure... I just copy edited... Have to browse thru and find relevant citations. Meanwhile, wherever you feel the article is not accurate, go ahead and add citation required {{fact}} tags.
To Carl: I feel the image of the "planet earth" search results are pretty irrelevant. May be search for something like *pornography* and take a snapshot, to illustrate the "family friendliness" of the search or remove the image completely.
Mugunth 08:36, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
I think of removing both the tags {{advert}} and factual accuracy, and replace it with {{COI}} tag. (Conflicts of Interest). I think, none of the editors, know about this company except Carl, who is working for the same company. May be when the article matures, and more people start contributing, we shall remove the {{COI}} tag. What say??? Mugunth 08:55, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
I think all banner tags can be dropped. The article is well documented and doesn't read like an advertisement anymore. Fmccown 13:37, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
I dropped wiki comments (denoted by <!-- --> in the wiki markup) in some places, as well as fixing grammar and tweaking some word choice.
That's all for now; I might work on it some more over the next week. -- Whiteknox 17:22, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
He typed in scared chicken and regretted it! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elinbrodrick ( talk • contribs) 12:26, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
I personally think the neutrality tag can be taken off now. I don't think this is currently biased or that it even sounds biased. In my opinion, there is no need to mention any more negative press in this article. Moreover, I'm not sure if the article needs any more expansion; I think it is pretty much done. Great job with the citations, Carl (we still might need to remove a few of the Picsearch references, however). -- Whiteknox 17:44, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Well, specifically two of my objections still remain: over-reliance on first-party sources and one-liner sections which shout for attention. But, if anyone wants to remove, I wont object strongly. -- soum talk 13:00, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
![]() |
An image used in this article, File:Picsearch image search fron.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: Wikipedia files with no non-free use rationale as of 24 November 2011
Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 20:44, 24 November 2011 (UTC) |
![]() | This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. |
"...they have come under heavy fire for indexing methods..." - Is there any source for this statement? I have not found anything that suggests this to be true.
This "carbon free stuff" is just their attempt to market themselves better - for a seach engine it is *absolutely* irrelevant.
The environmental policy is an important issue for many of Picsearch users, and it is important for Picsearch as well as many other companies who take social responsibility seriously.-- Carl Sarnstrand 10:16, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Competitors and alternatives to Picsearch are displayed under image search.-- Carl Sarnstrand 10:16, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
I have no problem with what you have added about the environmental issues, so please don't misunderstand. What I am concerned with is all these other parts that I will now list:
The burden of neutrality is yours. It's not my job to tell you how to write your article, and, basically, I don't really care enough to think about it that hard. I could go over it word for word and say exactly why it sounds like an advert, but the thing is it's a more general feeling I get rather than a specific "it's because of this one sentence here" type of thing. --
Ceas webmaster
16:52, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
I have started to make some minor edits adding sources. It will take some time. I will try to be as adequate and neutral as possible. --
Carl Sarnstrand
09:47, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Now I have done a first revision of the text and added references to every statement in the text. -- Carl Sarnstrand 14:57, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
You've taken care pretty much of all of my concerns, but it still looks like an advertisement to me. Also, the fact that most the links to the article are from Picsearch's own website make it heavily POV. I'm going to bing a few other places and try to get some other people to look at this, and if they think it's fine, I'll think it's fine too. -- Ceas webmaster 16:36, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Ceas webmaster asked me to join the discussion here. First, let me applaud Ceas webmaster for polite and judicious handling of this. So often people rant about this kind of thing. (Of course, Carl Sarnstrand is to be applauded also for cooperating.)
I personally think it is good for both Wikipedia and companies when companies write articles on themselves so long as the proper style is maintained. This kind of article supplies information to the users, which is a major purpose of Wikipedia. However, advertisements in any encyclopedia destroys its trustworthiness in the eyes of its users and definitely to be avoided.
I do think there are some problems here, but most of the content can be saved if we rearrange it. Here are my observations:
-- Whiteknox 18:36, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
I agree with these points. Perhaps more citations from non-Picsearch websites could be found. Fmccown 16:22, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
I like the idea of being thorough and just. Even though it took me quite a while to assemble all the references I think that Ceas webmaster had some good points. The old article wasn't really good. I have now rewritten it completely and it looks much better.
The language now sounds more like an encyclopedia and not so much as a advertisement:
It is true that a lot of references goes to Picsearch own website. There are two reasons:
It is true that the article contains few critical issues about Picsearch.
Picsearch is not a highly controversial company. Picsearch is advanced technology developer and provider, whose partners are more interesting. I would like to point out one semi-controversial facts:
-- Carl Sarnstrand 20:32, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm commenting on this article as Ceas webmaster asked me to do so...
But following some simple guidelines could change this article to a well written one... I'm throwing my two cents on those here...
with some light thrown on this area. Addition of technical information (not intellectual property related... every info should be attributed. WP:ATT) may be a good choice for making this article more encyclopedic. This addition should be similar to the PageRank content of Google Search page.
Club together coverage and relevancy. Club together, family friendliness and environment friendliness into one section. and
I'll try may be today or tomorrow to do some of these... Meanwhile, be bold and do them.
Mugunth 04:27, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
I've edited some of the copy to tone it more to encyclopaedia style. But I think part of the problem is that a lot of the content probably is in too great a depth for wikipedia. Some of this could be compressed into s section called product information perhaps? Saganaki- 06:57, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
To Caes webmaster: I've made some changes to the article... I feel we can remove the {{advert}} tag from the article.. Anyway, as you added that tag, please verify the article and remove it if you feel so... Regarding accuracy of the article, I'm not very sure... I just copy edited... Have to browse thru and find relevant citations. Meanwhile, wherever you feel the article is not accurate, go ahead and add citation required {{fact}} tags.
To Carl: I feel the image of the "planet earth" search results are pretty irrelevant. May be search for something like *pornography* and take a snapshot, to illustrate the "family friendliness" of the search or remove the image completely.
Mugunth 08:36, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
I think of removing both the tags {{advert}} and factual accuracy, and replace it with {{COI}} tag. (Conflicts of Interest). I think, none of the editors, know about this company except Carl, who is working for the same company. May be when the article matures, and more people start contributing, we shall remove the {{COI}} tag. What say??? Mugunth 08:55, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
I think all banner tags can be dropped. The article is well documented and doesn't read like an advertisement anymore. Fmccown 13:37, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
I dropped wiki comments (denoted by <!-- --> in the wiki markup) in some places, as well as fixing grammar and tweaking some word choice.
That's all for now; I might work on it some more over the next week. -- Whiteknox 17:22, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
He typed in scared chicken and regretted it! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elinbrodrick ( talk • contribs) 12:26, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
I personally think the neutrality tag can be taken off now. I don't think this is currently biased or that it even sounds biased. In my opinion, there is no need to mention any more negative press in this article. Moreover, I'm not sure if the article needs any more expansion; I think it is pretty much done. Great job with the citations, Carl (we still might need to remove a few of the Picsearch references, however). -- Whiteknox 17:44, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Well, specifically two of my objections still remain: over-reliance on first-party sources and one-liner sections which shout for attention. But, if anyone wants to remove, I wont object strongly. -- soum talk 13:00, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
![]() |
An image used in this article, File:Picsearch image search fron.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: Wikipedia files with no non-free use rationale as of 24 November 2011
Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 20:44, 24 November 2011 (UTC) |