|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
|This page was nominated for deletion on 16 November 2011 (UTC). The result of the discussion was no consensus.|
|Individuals with a conflict of interest, particularly those representing the subject of the article, are strongly advised not to directly edit the article. See Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. You may request corrections on or suggest content here on the Talk page for independent editors to review, or contact us if the issue is urgent.|
"10 days later, after removing links in violation of Google's Quality Guidelines, Rap Genius partially recovered from their penalty. In fact, some opinions discussed how well the penalty process served Rap Genius' Search Engine authority, as the aftermath showed dozens of fresh incoming links from online magazines and a rise in people searching Rap Genius in Google" This last point, the rise in people searching for RapGenius despite its penalty from Google, should have a link referring to the "Streisand effect" -Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 03:08, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
- I'd disagree - the Streisand Effect refers to a person (or company) trying to keep some piece of information out of public and that act of concealing resulting in increased scrutiny/exposure from the internet. What Rap Genius did was different; they were gaming Google's algorithm by inserting text/links that juked their search relevance and when Google caught on to the scheme they changed their algorithm to punish Rap Genius and discourage other sites from doing the same practice. So this is more "there's no such thing as bad publicity" than the Steisand Effect. The users who came to Rap Genius after their bad press were not trying to see irrelevant links/text, they were just going to site as a result of hearing about them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 15:09, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
I dunno how to source this
@Patrossey: I have reverted edits by the Patrossey. To better explain the reasons, the edits were not sourced by third party, reliable sources, had POV issues, and also reeked of WP:FANCRUFT. Users were heavily listed and do not appear to be notable at all. Apparition11 Complaints/Mistakes 01:28, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Genius (website). 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/20120616115434/http://rapgenius.com/posts/Rapexegesis-com-becomes-rapgenius-com to http://rapgenius.com/posts/Rapexegesis-com-becomes-rapgenius-com
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
You may set the
|checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting
|needhelp= to your help request.
- 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.
If you are unable to use these tools, you may set
|needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.
Something is off here.
I can't help feeling that something is just not right about this article. I'm thinking of trying a complete rebuild from scratch over the next few days. Any thoughts on this would be welcome. bd2412 T 12:57, 12 September 2017 (UTC)