Talk:Delicious (website)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


How is this an encyclopedic article? It seems like an advertisment for this service? --Zandarx talk 02:16, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

It easily meets notability guidelines for web sites. --McGeddon 04:51, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Noted --Zandarx talk 12:13, 15 June 2006 (UTC)


There was a casual mention in a blog entry( ) that used to be something called "Muxway". If someone could find out more about what Muxway was and add it to the entry, I think that would be valuable. --User:ElfWord

The wrong title template should be removed because, grammatically, even words that are not normally capitalized are capitalized when they begin a sentence, paragraph or article.

muxway was joshua's original prototype but is a much evolved version of muxway

Domain Hack[edit]

"Currently, is the most popular website using such a domain name." — what's the source for this claim? My gut feeling is that is more popular, because it's been around longer and Dan Bernstein's tools (qmail, ezmlm, tinydns, etc.) are widely used. What's more, I'm not sure what the proper measure of popularity should really be. Given the nature of the site, I'll grant that almost surely gets more pageviews, but I have no doubt that has received (and continues to receive) far more unique visitors, most of whom simply download one of the tools and never return. --Wclark 16:09, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Arguable statement you make there. A quick look at Alexa's traffic rankings comparing the two sites shows a fairly significiant difference. Daily Reach is a measure of unique visitors. --Eddwardo 21:26, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I for one have never heard of until now. It may well be widely known in the unix/linux enthuiast sphere, but perhaps not at all outside that. Matt Whyndham (talk) 10:42, 17 August 2008 (UTC) vs.[edit]

If there's going to be a capital letter due to technical limitations, shouldn't the name always be "" when referred to in the article? I don't really know what is, so I can't really make any decisions...

I agree completely that all references should be spelled "". - Fcendejas 05:13, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
In English, the first word of a sentence is always capitalized. Nohat 05:14, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
Yes, but in other articles like, eBay and easyJet (that pop to mind) they all start with lower case letters. I would be agree to changing all the to Ablaze 22:53, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Manual of Style (trademarks) says "Lowercased trademarks with no internal capitals should always be capitalized". Nohat 23:07, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
That's fair enough! But there is a load of exceptions out there. Even the example in the Manual of Style of thirtysomething doesn't obey the rule. I've search and found a few more:,,, i'm lovin' it, gzip, group hug, i-drive, Is a trademark? Ablaze 17:10, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
Of course "" is a trademark. It is "a distinctive sign of some kind which is used by a business to uniquely identify itself and its products and services to consumers, and to distinguish the business and its products or services from those of other businesses." The MoS for trademarks entry for trademarks like this is relatively new, and many articles haven't been fixed yet. Nohat 17:57, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
The New Hacker Dictionary has something to say about this --Midnightcomm 22:06, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Who's going to write the details of allegedly being bought and redirected after funding/purchase?

Not alleged. Actual fact. Happened before the aquisition. -- Joshua

This argument has probably gone away now that the service is officially "Delicious". Having said that, if the sentence starts with a "", it should preserve its lower case. Matt Whyndham (talk) 10:45, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Private book marks[edit]

Could someone please clarify the text to make it clear whether collections can be made private or not?

Individual bookmarks can be made private. What do you mean by collections? Dreamyshade 18:04, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

If, by collection you mean tags, then there is currently not a way to mark a whole tag as private. Nothing is stopping you from createing a 'private' tag and then ensure all bookmarks with that tag are marked private. But there's no way to automatically do this. --Vrillusions 21:07, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

How can you make existing bookmarks to private, like I have bookmarks at so how can I make all of them private without re-posting? Any help? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:35, 1 September 2011 (UTC)


how did it get its name? I mean, why not "" or "de.lic.ious"?

It had to end with .us to be a valid domain name - see domain hack and sounds better than i guess. BruceMagnus 03:17, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

No, it's because the founder owned already. Dreamyshade 08:16, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

do you have a source? could be added to main article --Vrillusions 16:46, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
"I'd registered the domain when .us opened the registry". Note that I am full of bias as the contributor of dumb cherry metaphors. Dreamyshade 08:21, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Show me the money[edit]

I started using recently, and I'm noting it's almost obnoxiously lacking in advertisements or any other sort of income. Does it make a profit? If so, how? If not, how did Yahoo! justify its multi-million-dollar purchase of it? Garrett Albright 00:33, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Very good question! I am wondering the same, what is their business model? Using the data for the Yahoo search engine? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:02, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

How much money is made from running —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:00, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I have the same question. Why would yahoo buy something that creates no revenue? does it provide demographics? Kingturtle (talk) 14:52, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

First Attempted Edit: Added a reference to the claim that is the most popular service of its kind.[edit]


That was my first attempted edit at an article. I was unsure if I should use an inline link or use a reference, so I decided to use a reference instead. If this is incorrect, I apologize and ask that someone inform me of the correct way to link to outside content. I'm still new, but I think I did it right. JMowery 20:00, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Similar browser; meta-social browser virtual scale:[edit]

Are their such websites that function as say a "Google search engine" but the only content accessed and searched through are websites similar in the virtual user state to such website as "" Selath (talk) 03:23, 8 December 2007 (UTC)akcw company name changed to Delicious.[edit]

I'm currently testing the preview version of the new "Delicious" and am enjoying it. The company states that it will be known as "Delicious" instead of "" from now on.

I might start a section about the new name, and hopefully someone can clean up my mistakes as I'm sure there will be one or two. JMowery 20:22, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Beware revisionism : the section on the origin of the service should not have been rewritten using the new name, since back then it was known by the old name. Matt Whyndham (talk) 10:47, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
I took the first steps and added a new section. JMowery 20:57, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Looks like you're doing fine as a new editor. :) Dreamyshade 21:28, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Appreciate the kind words! JMowery 23:48, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

possible new additions[edit]

the following two items would be good to the entry:

1) business model of

2) in news

it doesnt seem like an encyclopedic entry now

Gauravm1312 03:18, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, there's a lot of information in reliable news sources that isn't included in the article yet, for example in the Technology Review article or this old Guardian one. I'd write it myself but that would be even more of a conflict of interest than I already maintain on this article. :) Dreamyshade 08:37, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Enunciation of the name[edit]

I dont say delicious. I say del-issyoh dot U S. -- (talk) 20:58, 1 February 2008 (UTC) Then your wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pete147 (talkcontribs) 11:14, 5 July 2008 (UTC)


Has there been any information in regards to what will happen to delicious if Yahoo are bought by Microsoft?--NeF (talk) 01:53, 24 February 2008 (UTC)


Hi CoolKid1993! I was thinking that accuracy was preferred, but OK. :) The correct font is Arial, as specified in the CSS file. The text should also be black, like it is on . Dreamyshade (talk) 05:03, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Accuracy is preferred. I was basing the SVG on the logo that was available on the article before I created the SVG version. I will fix it. CoolKid1993 (talk) 21:19, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
All right, looks good now. Thanks! Dreamyshade (talk) 21:41, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Number of Users[edit]

The referenced URL [1] says delicious has 3 million users, whereas the Wikipedia article claims five million. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:30, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Is the article comprehensible?[edit]

Under "Site description," the article reads "Delicious uses a non-hierarchical classification system in which users can tag each of their bookmarks with freely chosen index terms (generating a kind of folksonomy)." Is that something a typical reader can understand? If the goal of Wikipedia is to create a "free encyclopedia," then the article need to be as comprehensible as other encyclopedias, IOW, the article needs to describe Delicious in a way that a typical reader can understand. (talk) 15:17, 15 August 2009 (UTC)


how does delicious make money? why would yahoo buy it? Kingturtle = (talk) 23:31, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Who is the owner of Delicious?[edit]

The article says that Avos bought Delicious from Yahoo, but the bottom of the article still has a Yahoo box? Ottawahitech (talk) 13:39, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

The right-hand infobox says that Avos is the current owner of Delicious, which should hopefully make that clear. But yeah, I wonder if it makes sense to retain that Yahoo! infobox. The infobox includes defunct products, but I'm not sure it includes any other products that are no longer part of Yahoo. Dreamyshade (talk) 22:02, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
No, I don't believe it is clear that Yahoo! no longer is involved. The article says: "Yahoo! operated the site until July 2011", but without a reference it is not clear whether Yahoo! is now out of the picture or not. Ottawahitech (talk) 13:54, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
The yahoo logo also remains in several of the other places you can find official Delicious stuff online (such as their firefox plugin on the mozilla site). I'm not sure if that's because some of yahoo's tech is still present (they haven't updated the plugin to go with the nightmare of an overhaul yet) but it is confusing without and official source to clarify. Millahnna (talk) 17:15, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Must use real name?[edit]

The artcile at zdnet says: "Among the required changes is disallowing users to use the service with their previous handles, and making everyone use a 'real name'". This is something that I have not seen discussed elsewhere - is it really true? Is Avos trying to commit suicide? Ottawahitech (talk) 12:35, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

I was looking into this yesterday after reading that article and I don't believe it is true. No other source is covering it and I crawled backwards and forwards through the new AVOs policies and could find no evidence of it. There's plenty of talk about having to switch usernames when a user opted in—and there is information in the related paragraphs about supplying your real name for registration—but I could find no stipulation that your "display name" had to be your real name. In fact, the two seemed to be defined and specified quite distinctly from each other. So either I'm misreading the new TOS and privacy policy and am about to get my delicious account deleted after finally getting my bookmarks up and running again, or zdnet is waaay off base. Virtually no google hits were turning up on "delicious bookmarks" real name yesterday (and those that did exist were blogs pointing back to that article) so I'm assuming zdnet is in the wrong. Millahnna (talk) 16:15, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
Interesting - I tried to bring this to the attention of the article's author at zdnet by commenting on the story, but wouldn't you know it, this is one of those websites that require you to register in order to leave comments (too lazy/ cheap to moderate messages), so very few people even bother commenting. BTW I see from wikipedia that ZDNET is part of Category:CBS Interactive websites. Ottawahitech (talk) 14:20, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

More news coverage (articles seem to be disappearing)[edit] Ottawahitech (talk) 23:19, 3 October 2011 (UTC) Ottawahitech (talk) 17:18, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Just wondering why no one is updating the article with new information. For example it appears that Avos just (re)opened a new support forum: ? Ottawahitech (talk) 12:13, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

New features on Delicious[edit]

I think it will be interesting to include new features that had been introduced to Delicious since its latest UI redesign last September. For example, Stack had undergone some changes recently and now it is "social" in the sense that users can contribute together to manage a Stack. Source: Cht12 (talk) 05:56, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree, that'd be a great contribution to this article. I think it'd even make sense to rename the current "Site description" section to "Pre-acquisition and Yahoo! Delicious features" and then write an entirely new section for "AVOS Delicious features", since these two versions of the site are quite different in features and focus. They're almost like two different sites with the same name. The challenge would be to find some reliable sources to add to the existing feature descriptions and additional sources to support new feature descriptions. (And if I can provide some advice to a new editor, I'd recommend finding a decent-sized list of reliable sources first and then using them to guide the writing of the new section, only writing and including facts that you can support with references. That's what I did while writing Pinboard (website) recently, and I found it a helpful method for taming the task of writing a well-sourced article.) Dreamyshade (talk) 06:31, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment. I just added a new section to describe the new Delicious features under AVOS, and expand a bit on the site description and history section of the page. I hope that they are well-supported by the sources I included. Cht12 (talk) 21:01, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

  • Nice progress! I like to think of three tiers of references for this type of article - the minimal one is referencing the site's official blog which is likely to be slightly promotional and biased (the Delicious Blog), better is referencing a tech blog that is more neutral but often written quickly without fact-checking (like ReadWriteWeb and TechCrunch), and ideal is referencing a news source that has a reputation for careful journalism with fact-checking, such as a magazine or newspaper (like Technology Review and CNN). Your addition leans mostly on the official blog, but it's fairly neutral and factual, so it's a good start. Dreamyshade (talk) 21:18, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Hey Dreamyshade, thanks for your comment about the different types of sources. That gives me a good idea of what kind of sources to look for in the future. =D Cht12 (talk) 16:56, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
  • I don't see any new sources included? Ottawahitech (talk) 23:11, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Cht12 added a section for "Delicious under Avos Systems", which includes some sources to go along with its text. Dreamyshade (talk) 03:39, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Review Comments[edit]

This article is quite trustworthy, quite biased, somewhat complete, quite well-written,and quite accurate. Lede could be a bit more concise and compact (less paragraphs). Maybe a section comparing the site with others would be interesting. Sean (talk) 22:10, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

  • Hi! Is this part of an assignment for the CMU class, too? I'm a little confused - the article is both "quite trustworthy" and "quite biased"? Looking at the "Rate this page" guidelines, does that mean that it seems the article has a good number of references, but the facts selected from those references don't accurately reflect the topic? To me the introductory section seems like a decent length (two small paragraphs for a not-very-long article); my commentary would be that it isn't a complete summary of the rest of the article. I can see including some comparisons being useful, since people sometimes write third-party articles about that; maybe even a discussion of sites that Delicious helped influence and inspire, such as parts of Digg and Flickr and clones like Diigo and Pinboard. Dreamyshade (talk) 03:40, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Link or reference needed for open-source clones[edit]

In regard to this line in the article: ″There are several competing social bookmarking websites including some open source clones.″ I did not find any mention of opens-source clones among the references or the links for the article. A reference is probably needed. Lloyd Ewing (talk) 05:38, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

URL changed back to[edit]

Sometime during 2016 have become unresponsive and the site is now only accessible at the old site URL which I'm not able to link to due to Wikipedia's spam filter (

I found the following blog post mentioning the move:

The next change will arguably be a bit bigger. One of the terms of the transition is that we must revert to the original URL: This will pose a few challenges, as there a lot of moving parts involved. But it’s something we have to do.


JGC (talk) 16:54, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

The article is outdated[edit]

This article is now somewhat outdated in places. NotYourFathersOldsmobile (talk) 03:31, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

WP:SOFIXIT, there is not much anything anyone else can do with no information other than it is somewhat outdated in places. If you know what is wrong you are the best person to fixit. ~ GB fan 11:09, 20 June 2017 (UTC)