Jump to content

Talk:HouseholdHacker

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the current revision of this page, as edited by Cewbot (talk | contribs) at 09:58, 15 February 2024 (Maintain {{WPBS}}: 3 WikiProject templates. Keep majority rating "C" in {{WPBS}}. Remove 3 same ratings as {{WPBS}} in {{WikiProject Websites}}, {{WikiProject Internet culture}}, {{WikiProject Computing}}.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.

(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Former good articleHouseholdHacker was one of the Social sciences and society good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
July 13, 2009Articles for deletionKept
September 4, 2009Good article nomineeListed
September 13, 2012Good article reassessmentDelisted
Current status: Delisted good article

Comment

[edit]

Anyone who has seen household hackers' videos must know that its all hoax videos.. I think that his only purpose is to hurt you or other wise spoil your doy (By example telling you to cut the charger cable for you ipod in two parts). 85.218.155.153 (talk) 11:17, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I added a prod tag, but it was reverted, so I requested deletion on Jul 6th RemoWilliams (talk) 05:16, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That is only speculation, you have NO PROOF, only if you actually done it, and failed, horribly.

--72.235.205.253 (talk) 02:34, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed move

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. 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 move request was: page moved.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 00:57, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Household Hacker → HouseholdHacker — The CamelCase title has been more well known and commonly used to address them, and has been used by themselves more often than the spaced name. 98.234.28.27 (talk) 03:30, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. 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.

Serious problems with the article

[edit]

Frankly, it's mind-boggling that this passed GA as recently as 2009: even if it weren't littered with elementary problems, the entire focus of the article is completely wrong. Were a casual reader to come across this article, he'd assume from the text that this were some LifeHacker-style website which happened to create a spoof article or two several years ago. In actuality, both from direct observation and from all of the secondary sources, this is a YouTube channel consisting entirely of parody content which achieved notoriety from one particular clip in 2007. I worked on cutting this down to a version based entirely around what secondary sources say, but sadly this was procedurally reverted. Step one will be to revert this ill-advised move; step two will be to delist, as even the sourced content is nowhere near GA-quality in 2012; step 3 will be to work on improving what's left to better examine the subject in terms of what secondary sources say about it. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 16:08, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with your assertion that the focus is not clear. Anyone reading the text would surely understand that HH is known for their hoaxes. Although the lead is a little lacking, which I will address now. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:32, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have made the lead match the text and have removed the (somewhat) recently added unsourced opinions (which were not there when it passed GA). --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:48, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

from 2007 to now HouseholdHacker has developed

[edit]

yep, while in 2007 they became famous for that one prank video about the iPod, the channel has evolved, and actually is now producing quite high quality educational style videos. According to them they get requests and comments from teachers who integrate their 'scientific tuesdays' into their curriculum.

While hoaxes were good in the beginning, the channel did lose a lot of popularity, which was turned around when they started to do serious videos, science, gadgets, and really usable tips. Of course they still do the prank videos too.

They became a considerable commercial entity too, pulling now at least a six figure income from ad revenue. The channel is also organized as HoseHold Hacker LLC, and they got themselves a social media guru for a business manager.

This one is one of the more interesting developments on the net. There are channels that do just comedy, like Jenna Marbles. These here are now moving intentionally into a direction to become a serious entertainment/education entity. I have been looking a lot at how people can make any money on YouTube, since Google bought it for a reason of course: they are now pulling profit from the old money pit. My interest in this is how really can it be that it was a loss leader and is now a profitable entity. Still not sure how Google Books work.. ;-)

So, summing up: things do develop, and articles should be updated maybe (I added a very tiny section about them having a business manager): especially this field is very dynamic.

Now about the quality: ranting about it not fulfilling certain standards: why don't you go ahead and fix it then, or give concrete information where exactly what item violates which rule, so we can 1) learn from you 2) fix it and bring it beyond the ranting state?

Mike (talk) 15:56, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Outdated sources

[edit]

Citation 1 no longer exists. Along with the previous discussion I do call to question the validity of this page now. Broken sources and people claiming information is wrong or outdated screams alarm bells here. I don't know a lot about it but I'm familiar with HouseHold Hacker and do believe that the importance of the onion video this article portrays doesn't not in reality outweigh the work they do nowadays with educational videos. -wph 11:18, 17 February 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Walpurgishacked (talk • contribs)

GA Reassessment

[edit]
This discussion is transcluded from Talk:HouseholdHacker/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

Criteria

[edit]
Good Article Status - Review Criteria
Further information: WP:WIAGA

A good article is—

  1. Well-written:
    2. (a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and
    (b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.[1]
  2. Verifiable with no original research:
    3. (a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;
    (b) reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose);[2] and
    (c) it contains no original research.
  3. Broad in its coverage:
    4. (a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;[3] and
    (b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
  4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
  5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
    6. [4]
  6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
    7. [5]
    (a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and
    (b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.[6]

Review

[edit]
  1. Well-written:
    2. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (prose) The reviewer has no notes here. Pass Pass
    (b) (MoS) Lead no longer meets MOS. Instead of summary information, information is covered in lead that should be in the body of the article, for example revenue, Matthew, branching out. Fail Fail
  2. Verifiable with no original research:
    3. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (references) No refs for claim of "very significant revenue stream", for information on branching out, etc. Fail Fail
    (b) (citations to reliable sources) The reviewer has no notes here. Neutral Undetermined
    (c) (original research) The reviewer has no notes here. Pass Pass
  3. Broad in its coverage:
    4. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (major aspects) The reviewer has no notes here. Pass Pass
    (b) (focused) The reviewer has no notes here. Pass Pass
  4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
    5. Notes Result
    The reviewer has no notes here. Pass Pass
  5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
    6. Notes Result
    The reviewer has no notes here. Pass Pass
  6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
    7. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales) It would be better to find another image rather than a screen capture, fair use, although it will not cause a failure of this criteria. Pass Pass
    (b) (appropriate use with suitable captions) The reviewer has no notes here. Pass Pass

Result

[edit]
Result Notes
Fail Fail The reviewer has no notes here.

Discussion

[edit]

The article has changed quite a bit and may not meet GA criteria anymore. Edits to the lead that add substantive information do not meet MOS guidelines. In addition, claims are made that need references from reliable sources. GregJackP Boomer! 01:34, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fail, on hold for 7 days without any improvement to article. GregJackP Boomer! 02:22, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Additional Notes

[edit]
  1. ^ Compliance with other aspects of the Manual of Style, or the Manual of Style mainpage or subpages of the guides listed, is not required for good articles.
  2. ^ Either parenthetical references or footnotes can be used for in-line citations, but not both in the same article.
  3. ^ This requirement is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles; it allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics.
  4. ^ Vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing), and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of unconstructive editing should be placed on hold.
  5. ^ Other media, such as video and sound clips, are also covered by this criterion.
  6. ^ The presence of images is not, in itself, a requirement. However, if images (or other media) with acceptable copyright status are appropriate and readily available, then some such images should be provided.

State of the article

[edit]

This article is in very poor shape (WP:V/WP:RS). I have removed unsourced statements. I have also tagged sourced statements that aren't supported by the source with {{fv}}; these will need to be removed if proper sources aren't found. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:41, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on HouseholdHacker. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • 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 IITalk to my owner:Online 08:03, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on HouseholdHacker. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • 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 IITalk to my owner:Online 22:44, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on HouseholdHacker. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • 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 IITalk to my owner:Online 20:05, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on HouseholdHacker. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • 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 IITalk to my owner:Online 03:03, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on HouseholdHacker. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • 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 IITalk to my owner:Online 09:26, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on HouseholdHacker. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • 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 IITalk to my owner:Online 22:53, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on HouseholdHacker. 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:

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

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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) 08:27, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Potential UPE target

[edit]

A new Upwork job suggests Justin Matthew SPAs might be returning. JoelleJay (talk) 23:14, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:HouseholdHacker&oldid=1207650859"