Talk:ChaCha (search engine)

This article was nominated for deletion on 2006-09-06. The result of the discussion was delete, but the decision was overturned by Deletion Review on 2006-10-29.

AfD

This article should not be deleted based on a month and a half old four-person AfD. I believe the subject is now notable enough to be included in Wikipedia. Although it should probably be under ChaCha (search engine). -- goatasaur 15:39, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~If anyone is planning on deleting this again post a NEW AfD request before doing so.~~ (e: revote not nec.) Subject of article has changed considerably since September 6th, which was less than a week after the website launched. ChaCha currently has over 5000 guides, and many users, with an expected 50,000 guides by year's end. -- goatasaur 15:55, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge from Scott A. Jones

Please merge any relevant content from Scott A. Jones per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scott A. Jones. Thanks. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-29 06:28Z

Prank Searches

As the site gets bigger, more and more people are pulling prank searches for fun on ChaCha and posting them around the 'net. It seems to be a phenomina big enogh to be worth mentioning.

Feel free to add that information with a proper source if you'd like. --Maxamegalon2000 21:59, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am pretty sure global troll community will discover chacha soon, and hopefully this will take some heat off wikipedia: bugging a live person is much more fun than to blank wikipages. :-) `'mikka 22:25, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lollerz, pranking the guides must be at least 8x as fun as blanking Wiki's. Luksuh 22:59, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

-Not really, we can't make them see shock images.

Added something about pranking. Spread the good word! Citation-ish used. Hard to find citations for prank percentage. For the record, ChaCha was not helpful in finding this number. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pictish (talk • contribs) 23:34, 13 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Shouldn't ChrisB or someone be put on this? --Clorox (talk) 01:11, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

logo

Doesn't the logo of ChaCha have a little stamp thing on it that says, "BETA" on it? I saw it at the website. ANNAfoxlover 19:55, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

chacha issues

i wanted to add chacha's public discussion policy but it was removed, also how in the past chacha's search time dropped from an infinite amount of time to 6 minutes of searching. Lastly, regarding the prankster issue, i included a link to a 3rd party opinion piece about ChaCha search engine that discusses this issue in detail. but all was removed.

ChaCha themselves will not cooperate in disclosing this information. This article is not balanced and seems to be a promotional article on chacha. --Icobi 18:35, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anti ChaCha sentiment on the web

we need to document the anti chacha sentiment that's growing from current and ex guides. This wiki page shouldn't just be a promotional peice on chacha. There are many controversial issues regarding this search engine that need to be addressed. Anybody agree? Icobi 07:54, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, we shouldn't document the sentiment until a secondary source documents it first. If you can find some reputable sources on these controversial issues, feel free to add them to the article. --Maxa megalon 2000 16:09, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

what kind of source is reputable? I found this on Associated Content. would this count as a good source? --Icobi 20:00, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since neither the link or the website hosting is seems to be valid anymore, I'd say no. ;) Banaticus (talk) 04:24, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am a current guide and trying to communicate with HQ is soooooo difficult. They never reply to any emails I send about the "bugs" i experience. i LIKE the concept and program but either a) they are so overwhelmed with programming issues they ignore communication from current guides or b) they dont give a crap about their current guides. It may be 'b' since they have been doing soooo many promotions and 'hot periods'. its a startup and i hope they dont forget a companies greatest assets are not their intellectual property but their PEOPLE. I wonder if they'd even read this. I've sent emails as user and as a guide and yet I have NEVER gotten a reply. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.13.214.54 (talk) 04:04, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Human Search Engine" revert-war

This is spilling over from a discussion about the term, and the fate of the Human Search Engine page itself (see its talk page and AfD for details). DMacks (talk) 07:43, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The site itself doesn't mention human search engine at all, it uses social search. Until otherwise, I believe that it should be changed back to social search. Jac_roe^Blank 21:18, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The press refers to ChaCha as a human search engine. Below is one of many instances where they do this:

http://frostfirebuzz.com/chacha-recevies-8-million-funding-but-will-need-a-lot-more-real-time-human-search

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.154.110.167 (talk)

In all content of that article, it is a "human-powered search engine"—the title is the only place it's "human search engine". Editors (who are sometimes people not familiar with the topic) often omit words from key phrases when writing titles. DMacks (talk) 16:25, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cancel Account

ChaCha does not have any way to cancel your account and when i contacted them to do so, my email was ignored. Can we create a section about this? Simon.uk.21 (talk) 01:42, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you referring to the spam that ChaCha sends you after you send a query to them? Text "STOP" (all in capital letters, no other characters) and it'll stop. Banaticus (talk) 04:24, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

no, i mean, when you set up an account to log into etc, there is no way of deleting the account. you know the way on many sites like google you can 'delete my account' —Preceding unsigned comment added by Simaloko (talk • contribs) 01:00, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fast pitch award

The snippet I and my colleague added to the "Other" section has been repeatedly removed. I've checked the External_link_spamming article and the link therein is no more promotional than a link to any other news story. Does this mean that external citations cannot be added to Wikipedia at all? Welkin19 (talk) 13:51, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For those of us who don't want to come through edit histories, want to post the link here? Why do you want to post it, what purpose does it serve -- how does it add to the article? Banaticus (talk) 04:24, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The content was a press release sourced to a non-notable marketing company about non-notable activities. It's easy enough to trace the edits based on the date of the above posting or the editor's history. Flowanda | Talk 07:37, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of Interest

I think it's clear that employees of ChaCha are attempting to promote their business and portray a purely positive image here on Wikipedia... which, of course, is clearly against the WP:COI policy. I was a bit suspicious when an anonymous IP (64.255.241.78) deleted the controversy section from this page. That IP address has not only added elements to this article that border on press releases, but that IP also resolves to Carmel, Indiana - the home of ChaCha (search engine)'s headquarters. I did not restore the text this user recently deleted, because it is opinionated and it would need citations. However, I suggest someone take a purely objective look at this article and make sure it's fact and not advertisement. 208.188.176.72 (talk) 03:29, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So... someone deleted a portion of an article and they happened to be from the same town as the website the article is about? Additionally, you're telling me that you can't revert the edit because it was a good edit? Is it possible that it's a coincidence that the editor was from that city? Are you sure they weren't just following the many Wikipedia rules about such content found in Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view? Simply because an American removes negative opinionated content on the Foreign_policy_of_the_United_States page doesn't mean they have a conflict of interest, now does it? Also, wouldn't any removal of any negative comments from the Criticisms_of_wikipedia page be a Conflict of Interest; since the person removing it would also be a supporter of Wikipedia by definition? I think it's clear that you're in violation of the Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith guideline. Instead of making such broad assumptions, it might be in everyone's best interest if you ask questions rather then point fingers.