Talk:ServiceMagic

Speedy deletion

In response to this entry being a candidate for speedy deletion due to it being a potential advertisement for a non-notable web site. I would like to respectfully disagree. This is simply a summary of a web site, ServiceMagic.com, and the service it offers. I do not know what is the criteria for non-notable website, but I would classify ServiceMagic as notable given that it has more than 3 million registered members and the largest network (over 35,000) of prescreened contractors on the web. It's not meant to be an advertisement...just an accurate reflection of what a person would find if they were to visit ServiceMagic.

Howdy! I marked it for speedy deletion because it reads like an advertisement. If you can cite some references for your statement, then I'm sure an admin will remove the speedy tag, but you as an editor shouldn't remove it yourself. Don't worry, if I was wrong when I added the tag, I'll be slapped around by an admin. It's the circle of life. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 17:52, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

OK, I'm new (just registered) so thanks for the tips. In the interest of transparency, I am an employee of ServiceMagic so those statistics come straight from the source. I suppose I'll await an admin to provide some feedback - I'm happy to modify the entry to make it acceptable. Thanks. --Azurcher 18:10, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia! I'm sorry your first encounter has been this one, I hope you'll stick around and write other stuff too! We're not all jerks here.  :) Best regards, CHAIRBOY (☎) 20:27, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Avoiding deletion

When I nominated this for Speedy Delete, it was because the page reads like an advertisement. After doing some more research and corresponding with the editor (above), I've decided to pull the db tag. What I'd like to see is the article changed to be less of an ad and more of a simple, factual description. If this is done, I believe this can be a Wikipedia article in good standing. Before I go into it and start hacking and slashing, I'd like to let someone else take a shot at it. My motives as the speedy delete nominator might otherwise be in question to the stakeholders (even though the contributor Azurcher has been great) and basically, I just don't want to be a dick. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 21:16, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

I attempted to remove the elements that would be considered advertorial. Thanks for the help and if anyone has additional suggestions, please go ahead. Note I was not logged in when I made my edits (still learning :)), but hopefully this provides that context for anyone interested. Regards. --Azurcher 23:18, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

I am a pool cleaner who was contacted by Service Magic. I looked it up on Wikipedia to get more info. What was there was useful and better than nothing at all. I don't belong to consumer reports or better business bureau. I would like to see more comments/info from people who have used Service Magic, contractors and customers. - David, Jax, FL —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dspvbfl (talk • contribs) 23:44, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:ServiceMagic logo.gif

Image:ServiceMagic logo.gif 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 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 04:04, 6 June 2007 (UTC) New image roofing & construction Inc. 2004 Tuam street. Houston TX 77004 832-421-7474

Article problems

This article has multiple problems: advertorial tone, lack of sourcing, overreliance on self-published press releases for the majority of the facts in the article. While press releases and corporate websites may be acceptable in many instances, they are overused in this instance. I see that this has been nominated for deletion twice before in the distant past, and inexplicably was not deleted. I'll wait some days to see if this article can be improved with reliable third party sources. If not, I will nominate it again and see what community sentiment brings. ScottyBerg (talk) 18:15, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I did a little cleanup. More is needed. Sources did not support text, one source was mislabeled (a press release was mislabeled a Reuters article), a Wall Street Journal article was mistitled, both apparently examples of the COI editing that has plagued this article. 18:45, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Article should include links to the numerous adverse comments about the service —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.213.110.4 (talk) 12:07, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Re: article problems, re links to numerous adverse comments about the service

Here's one for a start. I was considering using this service as a contractor, but this outfit has bad press all over the internet...from both the contractors and the consumers.

http://www.consumeraffairs.com/homeowners/servicemagic.html