Talk:Shelfari

message: Hello, I've made some changes by taking away some sentences I felt were not neutral.  Is the tone better?  Let me know.  Thanks.Psstpnoy 07:07, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: This is the founder of LibraryThing, a competitor. I have refrained from changing the following part:
:Shelfari has also been criticized for falsely claiming to have been "the first social media site focussed on books". [7]
I feel that it might be better to contextualize this. I am the person cited, but my company is a competitor with them.  While I criticized them for this, for spamming and for astroturfing--for which they apologized--and generally have a low opinion of their tactics, I don't think it's fair to say that they have been criticized without noting the source is hardly impartial. 
I would either find someone impartial who said this, put something in about the partiality of the source or remove it.
===Other suggestions===
*I would love to see the Wikipedia community figure out who WAS the first site of this kind. It's not LibraryThing. I think one might start with Bibliophil.org or SingleFile (now defunct). It would make an interesting paragraph  in the Social cataloging article.
*I would not capitalize "Blog widget." 
*"Shelfari users build virtual bookshelves of the titles they own, love, or have read, and rate, review, and tag them." is awkward.
*"Individuals are able to sign up for free and register an unlimited number of books." Does Shelfari allow organizations to do it? I think so, but I don't know. Certainly LibraryThing has a lot of churches and other small organizations, and I'm guessing Shelfari does too.
*The desription of the widget with "1)" and "2)" isn't good prose.
*Overall punctuation is placed in the UK manner, not the US manner favored by the Chicago Manual and etc.
*There is public information about some of Shelfari's other investors, eg., http://asack.typepad.com/a_sack_of_seattle/angel_investing/index.html and http://www.feld.com/blog/archives/2007/11/great_example_o.html. This should be in there.
*The paragraph about spam should probably be roughly dated. At that point the entry has turned into a sort of informal history, with dates leading developments, so I think this should have the same format. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lectiodifficilior (talk • contribs) 20:05, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for your concern about impartiality. Wikipedia's policies generally discourage use of self-published sources, with the exemption of those produced by established experts or by the subject of an article; this and the potential conflict of interest seemed to me enough reason to remove the "first site" criticism. If a similar criticism is made or reported by, say, a newspaper, then I'd be happy for it to be added back. -- EALacey (talk) 20:20, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I've made some stylistic changes following your suggestions. Could you clarify your point about UK punctuation? If you're referring to punctuation outside quotation marks where it isn't part of the quotation, that's following Wikipedia's own manual of style. -- EALacey (talk) 20:32, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Some orginizations do have Shelfari accounts. Atpb789654 (talk) 22:56, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism conundrum 

message: *I would love to see the Wikipedia community figure out who WAS the first site of this kind. It's not LibraryThing. I think one might start with Bibliophil.org or SingleFile (now defunct). It would make an interesting paragraph  in the Social cataloging article.
*I would not capitalize "Blog widget." 
*"Shelfari users build virtual bookshelves of the titles they own, love, or have read, and rate, review, and tag them." is awkward.
*"Individuals are able to sign up for free and register an unlimited number of books." Does Shelfari allow organizations to do it? I think so, but I don't know. Certainly LibraryThing has a lot of churches and other small organizations, and I'm guessing Shelfari does too.
*The desription of the widget with "1)" and "2)" isn't good prose.
*Overall punctuation is placed in the UK manner, not the US manner favored by the Chicago Manual and etc.
*There is public information about some of Shelfari's other investors, eg., http://asack.typepad.com/a_sack_of_seattle/angel_investing/index.html and http://www.feld.com/blog/archives/2007/11/great_example_o.html. This should be in there.
*The paragraph about spam should probably be roughly dated. At that point the entry has turned into a sort of informal history, with dates leading developments, so I think this should have the same format. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lectiodifficilior (talk • contribs) 20:05, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for your concern about impartiality. Wikipedia's policies generally discourage use of self-published sources, with the exemption of those produced by established experts or by the subject of an article; this and the potential conflict of interest seemed to me enough reason to remove the "first site" criticism. If a similar criticism is made or reported by, say, a newspaper, then I'd be happy for it to be added back. -- EALacey (talk) 20:20, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I've made some stylistic changes following your suggestions. Could you clarify your point about UK punctuation? If you're referring to punctuation outside quotation marks where it isn't part of the quotation, that's following Wikipedia's own manual of style. -- EALacey (talk) 20:32, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Some orginizations do have Shelfari accounts. Atpb789654 (talk) 22:56, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Other suggestions

message: Hey. This is the LibraryThing guy again. Clearly I can't edit this article, but I wanted to drop a line suggesting someone do it. The current version is too thin, IMHO, and the criticism section—which I think belongs—shouldn't be the only section! That's unfair, I think. There should be something on their features, including one or two sentences on their "shelf" feature—which they stress more than other sites. Lectiodifficilior (talk) 16:31, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, I added a POV template. Still, my Shelfari knowledge is limited so I don't think theres much I can do. -- Fluteflute Talk Contributions 19:35, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I do agree... the sum and total of Shelfari should not be the criticism it has received. There are upsides- of course there are upsides, otherwise the site would be dead- and these should be presented as well as the negative aspect. I'm not very fond of writing articles, but I do think I'm a pretty good copy-editor, and so if someone wrote another section I'd be willing to  copy-edit it. Just drop me a line on my talk page and the next time I log on I'll do what I can. --Song (talk) 15:15, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article too thin, unfair? 

message: Do you think the screen shot should be updated? The site looks different now...  —Preceding unsigned comment added by AlicexCullen (talk • contribs) 01:45, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: yesAtpb789654 (talk) 22:55, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Update Screenshot? 

message: I removed the POV tag because the specific reasons it was added appear to have been addressed. If anyone still thinks there is a remaining POV issue, please insert a new tag with a new date and explain why here. If anyone thinks the existing POV issue was not addressed, please insert the old tag with the old date and explain why here. Thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 17:29, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed POV tag