Talk:Fotolog/Archive 1

Archive 1

Removing reference to Fotolog now being a spam blog

I fail to see how removing the only reference on the web to the current fate of Fotolog is helpful to anyone. Colinmcdermott (talk) 12:08, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Writing style

The article is certainly non-objective. I haven't seen a worse article on Wikipedia yet. It was a pain reading it. Somebody please do something about it. And I still don't know what Fotolog actually is.

Spain

Spain is also a big market of this website, taking in account that Spain is the 5th european country in terms of population the presence of this website in Europe must not be ignored.

Regards —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.221.21.168 (talk) 13:58, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I noticed that some people added some good info to the page. I had left some things very broad as I didnt know the details, but that seems to be fixed. I moved Misc. to below History to make things flow better. I dont know if Misc should even be around. I only added it to make the page more presentable while it was marked for deletion. Any more ideas on what to add?Jamesinclair 22:20, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Photoblog

Why does 'Photoblog' redirect here? Fotolog is a company, photoblog is a type of blog. This is illogical and needs fixed. Photoblog should have its own page

On January 24 2006 the redirection was suppressed.

Pablo.cl 18:12, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Someone linked to the Spanish article which seems to be very complete. Ill translate it over here over the next few weeks. Jamesinclair 05:30, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

---

Hi Jamesiclair.

The Spanish article es:Fotolog links to en:Photoblog, and conversely. This article (en:Fotolog) should link to es:Fotolog.com an article that doesn't exist yet. So, I'll remove the link to es:Fotolog. If you ever do the transaltion, please merge it with en:Photoblog.

Pablo.cl 18:12, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Neutrality, cleanup

This article needs major clean up. The writing is heavily subjective and not very professional. Some examples of problems are:

One of the most famous photoblog web sites

An effective 'friends and favourites' system adds to the sense of community, and makes it easy to browse the website by quickly being able to see which of your preferred pages have recently uploaded

The site has had frequent technical problems

The site has improved considerably

As of April 18, 2006, Fotolog.com had: 3,246,908 Fotolog Members 108,453,449 Photos this needs a source.

These kinds of descriptors are not professional as they're often relative and sound more like marketing-speak than anything else. --Crossmr 01:26, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Ive removed some of that wording. The source of those numbers is simply the front page. I do not know how to cite it since it changes hourly. Jamesinclair 05:28, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

We might consider just making a general statement than, something like over 3 million members and over 100 million photos, then update for certain milestones. --Crossmr 05:31, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Brazil

Is there a source for that? --Crossmr 06:23, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

They seem to have temporarily removed the directory system. "The Fotolog elves are hard at work building a whole new directory system. Stay tuned for better directories that update on a regular basis." That was the source. However, 90 seconds of browsing the website will confirm this data. Check out on the front page where it says Some of the Most Viewed All Time", lots of Brazil flogs. Also, it appears that Fotolog now allows 10,000 users a day. In the past when it was 1,000, and you tried to create an account, it would tell you how many users were in the country. Ill try to find another source, but Im 100% sure of this. Jamesinclair 06:13, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup & Name Change

I just made a cleanup for the fotolog page.

Don't you think the wiki should be renamed to Fotolog.com? That's because may be more correct and to avoid confusions.

Realize many talk page people have problems with this article but I removed subscription link

Hi, folks, I removed the bottom link on the article page because it went to a subscription only page with advertising and no info. That kind of link is not allowed per WP:EL. Can you find some better links for this page? Some of them don't work all the time -- like the one in the body of the article. Mattisse(talk) 00:02, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Kinds of fotologs section

This part of the article was very poorly written and didn't actually provide any encyclopedic information; it seemed to me like its purpose was to advertise the linked fotologs used as examples of the "kinds of fotologs". -- claviola (logged out) 201.29.188.81 13:27, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Fotolog-logo.png

Image:Fotolog-logo.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 09:13, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Fotolog-logo.png

Image:Fotolog-logo.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 20:33, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

This reads like a bad ad

Seriously, I think this was written by the Fotolog company.

In the "Golden Camera" section, the abbreviated "Gold Cam" shows a sense of familiarity which makes it clear that it was written by an insider. This article does not belong under the "Photoblog" heading. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kingstonlounge (talk • contribs) 14:04, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I came looking for some information about what database they use and can find nothing useful here. It is an ad basically. Drkirkby (talk) 18:13, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Fotolog. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927213134/http://www.primenewswire.com/newsroom/news.html?d=114076 to http://www.primenewswire.com/newsroom/news.html?d=114076

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

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:03, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Archive 1