Talk:Issuu

Gallery Section

Why does this article have a gallery section? Of the two images, one is presumably of a magazine that can be found on Issuu, and the other seems to have no relation whatsoever to the topic in question. Cheolsoo (talk) 02:06, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Copyright infringement

I just found a digital copy of The Adventures of Phoebe Zeit-Geist on Issuu. I have my doubts about who posted it and whether they own the copyright. Issuu claims to take copyright seriously, but how can we tell if they are? and if we cant be sure, can we link from WP articles to Issuu, as is done with this book? im uncomfortable with using Issuu as a reference or even as an external link.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 23:32, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Advertorial

Is it just me, or does this whole thing sound like brochure copy? There are many citations, but the bulk of the copy is not cited. It looks like 13 citations are just referring to where Issuu was mentioned. Virtually all of the remaining article should be summed up briefly. Let readers visit Issuu's site if they want to read advertorial. Anyone else agree with this? Indy (talk) 13:54, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

yes, it needs major cleanup. and i still think there is a big issue (NPI) with copyright. if i find references to my concern as stated above, i will add it to article. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 21:48, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

here's my attempt at a cleanup. I think i left the information appropriate for WP. to me, this kind of editing makes in more clear what the notability of a company is. when its promotional material, as a reader my eyes glaze over and i often dont get what they are actually doing because of the promotional tone. now i actually see what they are doing, and its obviously notable. still, i will try to find articles that address any copyright problems, as that would be a logical, notable event around this service. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 17:27, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Speaking personally, I find it hard to believe the Issuu software could have won any sort of award. I cannot imagine who perceives a benefit from poorly imitating a paper document in a Web browser. All it does that I can see is make documents much harder to read and cite. Reading information on, say, Wikipedia is vastly better. This article needs a "Criticism" section. If the product has received any significant independent coverage I have to believe some of it was by someone who can recognize an ergonomic disaster when they see it. --Teratornis (talk) 18:46, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Came here to say this. There must be criticism out there! Equinox ◑ 18:54, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

external links

Does anyone want to take a stab at cleaning this section up? It's not clear to me that they are affiliated with the company/product on this page and some may be competition 12.0.205.82 (talk) 21:26, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

was bold, removed them. they seem more appropriate for the "see also" section. 12.0.205.82 (talk) 22:23, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Persistent Spammer Section

Do not delete/blank the Persistent Spammer section without providing a valid reason in Talk. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.64.6.154 (talk) 23:13, 8 February 2018 (UTC)