Talk:Graphiq

Discussions

• Disclosure:I am an employee of FindTheBest, however, I have written this article to conform with the rules and guidelines set forth inWP:V, WP:RS, WP:NPOV, and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#How to avoid COI edits
• Background: When FindTheBest was launched 2 years ago, we attempted to use Wikipedia as a promotional device. At the time, we were unaware of WP:NPOV and WP:COI policies. Because of our policy violation, the site was added to Wikipedia's blacklist. Now, two years later, FindTheBest has grown into a large, venture capital-funded site that ranks #944 in US traffic according to Alexa.com<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/findthebest.com |title=FindTheBest's Traffic Report |publisher=Alexa.com |date= 2012-06-26|accessdate=2012-06-26}}</ref>

• I appealed our case to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist#FindTheBest.com and was given instructions by several administrators on how to legitimately remove FindTheBest from the blacklist. I have followed their directions and I am now asking this article to be reviewed. Please feel free to edit, and give me pointers & suggestions. Thank you for your time and help!Evan(talk) 17:56, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

• Note: I cannot upload FindTheBest's logo for use in the company info box until the FindTheBest(.)com is removed from the blacklist.

• By the recommendation of User:OlYeller21 , I have added a "Notable Template" to this article.
• Please feel free to identify non-notable references and external links, and feel free to give me general pointers for improving the article.

I would like to point out though that TechCrunch, VentureBeat, and Mashable are popular news sources in the tech, internet and startup world and attract millions of readers every month. All three of the sites have a PageRank of 8, indicating that they have a high domain authority. In comparison, The Seattle Times has a PageRank of 6; The Dallas Morning News, The Oregonian and The Chicago Sun-Times have PageRanks of 7, and The Wallstreet Journal, USA Today, and The Los Angeles Times have PageRanks of 8. The only newspaper to have a PageRank of 9 is the New York Times. (Wikipedia is also a 9)

Therefore, I would like to argue that TechCrunch, VentureBeat and Mashable are reliable sources for an article on an internet site. While researching other startups for my article, I noticed that Quora, Kayak.com, Zillow, Klouy, AirBnb, Turntable.FM,Hipmunk, Prezi etc. also have multiple references from TechCrunch, VentureBeat and Mashable. Evan (talk) 21:42, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

This is pathetic that an employee is able to spam Wiki with company spin to promote their website. They are not a legitimate company, rather they make their living off of aggregating people's personal information they obtain and blasting it out on the web for anyone to read. A simple Google search reveals how many angry consumers there are regarding their shady and questionable business practices. To allow a company minion the ability to use this site to promote themselves, all the while ignoring the legitimate criticism that has been leveled at them by objective sources elsewhere does the public a great disservice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.121.19.252 (talk) 20:53, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

I've removed material that was added by 152.121.19.252, because no citations were provided. When I searched, I did find a couple of anonymous complaints about the company, but I didn't find secondary sources that discuss the complaints. After my changes, the article is very similar to what the company's publicists left us with, so I've tagged it for COI. —rybec 09:59, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Discussion on COI Noticeboard

• This article has been discussed on the COI Noticeboard: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_57#FindTheBest

• Several admins have recommended that is be moved to the Main Space Evan (talk) 18:47, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Notability

• The notability of this article's references has been discussed on this talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_57#FindTheBest Evan (talk) 18:47, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Graphiq. 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 http://web.archive.org/web/20130718122001/http://www.nbcnews.com:80/id/51643824/ns/business-press_releases/t/findthebest-names-most-coveted-products-dads-grads-popular-gift-categories to http://www.nbcnews.com/id/51643824/ns/business-press_releases/t/findthebest-names-most-coveted-products-dads-grads-popular-gift-categories/#.UY0yrrW87zw

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} 10:10, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Proposed deletion

I guess I'm the first and only so far to respond to the undated-at-inception WP:PROD. The link within the lengthy template at the head of the article goes to the same generic PROD link and has no info about what to do to respond. There's a typo also in the statement in the template-header which further put me off up front. More substantively SwisterTwister, while it seems on further look to be a good faith challenge, it just seems way too drastic. Fights about it have been going on since its start in 2012, including a wp:COI challenge and blockage that's been resolved to the blocker's satisfaction at User_talk:Evanthomas1, the ed. who started the article. It's been improving. Plus, for me: (a) It has at least one major credential with DoubleClick. (b) I found the article via one of the many sites the company maintains -- mooseroots.com, encountered at random in my last edit, traced via the footer there to Graphiq -- and have now upgraded the Graphiq article to include its many current sites including Mooseroots.com. (MooseRoots has a redirect here already-- thanks to the NPOV ed. -- it's turned out but now at least the '.com' will show up in a Wiki search, too.) (c) At Fox News via a quick Google search I just found the Graphiq graphic "Undocumented Immigrant Population by State". Maybe it's junk (at worst) but it's out there and if Wiki wants to help users understand what's in their world it has to be here; improving. All told, Delete? No. I would be inclined to restore the template {{NPOV}} that was placed in Nov. 2015 and removed, without mention in an Edit summary, sometime since; if it seems to fit. Cheers. Swliv (talk) 17:12, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Ps: I hadn't see the above discussions about the initial COI when I wrote my response here and I still haven't read it in any detail. If it still seems relevant to the present proposal I hope it will be cited. I know from a glimpse 'pathetic' and even 'spam' doesn't seem necessary and/or appropriate to me. The work seems to have been good faith if not ultimately maybe fully allowed, as the conditional and maybe now unconditional unblocking of the editor would seem to indicate. Swliv (talk) 17:27, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

I don't know all the protocol and process but can report that the PROD has been removed from the page. NPOV has not been restored. Some content has been added. I'm still considering NPOV (which would signal "lack of a Neutral Point of View"). Cheers. Swliv (talk) 21:56, 17 February 2017 (UTC)