Talk:Gaydar (website)

message: Even after people remove it, someone keeps reinserting his original research about how gaydar has "made courtship more text-based" or whatever. I don't think very much from that paragraph should be included, but at the very, very least it should have a citation. Aroundthewayboy 19:47, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Then it shouldn't be hard to cite a source. ;) Aroundthewayboy 20:14, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Original Research

message: Do you guys mind if I remove the photo ('An example of a main photo on Gaydar'). It doesn't provide any information and Wikipedia is an encyclopedia after all... Splette 21:34, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Tony, the photo gives an impression of the site. --Oldak Quill 16:37, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Those two sites appear to be reality porn, and are therefore quite different from Gaydar. Even if they were comparable, why would they provide some kind of standard for this article? (That would imply that all articles should be the same or similar.) Exactly why is the photo here undesirable? Tony 06:24, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

text: The current photo should be removed and replaced with one of the ones that appears on the front page of the site. It's not right to have someone's personal photo appearing here without their permission.Triangle e 00:28, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you organise a pic of the home page, then? Tony 04:31, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Should it be one of the pictures from the home page (i.e. this), or a picture of the home page (i.e. this)? Or perhaps simply a logo?? Sweetie Petie 14:34, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, it's better looking ;) Sweetie Petie 09:30, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I have and do give my permission. Apologies if this appears terribly narcissistic, however I felt the other photo wasn't really indicative of the kind of main photos that appear in the listings, and it wouldn't have been appropriate to use a random photo; thus me! Trefusismadding 14:38, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So ... um ... you won't mind when the article is featured on WP's homepage and your pic is flashed around the world ...    Tony 15:00, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think we need any examples of a main photo on Gaydar though, do we? Sweetie Petie 16:11, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Good question. I'll get back to you. Sweetie Petie 17:25, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I like that guy's photo as the main photo. It's very Gaydar. Aroundthewayboy 19:49, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it might be gaydar-style and I definitely like it more than the old one but the caption is simply wrong. It is NOT an example of a main picture shown on the website: This photo has never been on the main page - or am I wrong? It is only made in the same style. This makes me wonder (again) why we have the photo there in the first place. Sorry, but this is not encyclopedic at all.... --Splette  Talk 16:14, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So, Splette, can you organise a screen-shot of the home page to replace this pic? Tony 00:49, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Remove Photo? 

message: Does anyone mind if I remove the paragraph about 'disdain'. I'm unsure about a number of its assumptions, such as (1) the emphasis on couples, (2) that non-sexual content in the chatrooms reduces the 'sex-obsessed image', (3) that there's something inherently undesirable about being sex obsessed or seeking casual sex. 
It raises lots of thorny issues.
Tony 05:59, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Remove one paragraph? 

message: This had major, major NPOV issues that I tried to address by removing original research and adding a short paragraph about controversies surrounding the site. I'm not even a particular critic of the site, but Wikipedia articles need to be BALANCED and encyclopedic. This article read as if the Gaydar marketing department had written it. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a marketing tool or platform for original research.
Here are the two bits of original research I removed that need citations if they are to be reinserted:
:Considered as a whole, the site contains a wealth of data about the gay world that is freely accessible to members, but which does not yet appear to have been used for research purposes. 
:In doing so, Gaydar appears to promote the use of written text over body language and oral communication in the initial stages of the courtship process. It allows users to display and receive more detailed and intimate information in many personal areas than is possible in live venues, with a significantly lower level of personal risk to users.
I found the CDC study here, among other places:  64.131.157.221 09:17, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That is precisely what WIkipedia is not supposed to be. Nice to see I work for Gaydar now - obviously I got bored at Heaven.... Nick Cooper 08:20, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  controversy section 

message: The CDC paper (requires subscription to access full text) does not explicitly mention gaydar as being one of the sites used in the study, therefore I don't think the CDC study should be mentioned in this article. It falsely increases the apparent notability of this website. I've marked it as "citation needed", but feel it should be deleted entirely. I will do it myself in a couple of months if nobody objects, and I remember :) Ooooooooo 12:02, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: CDC study

message: Do we really need "gaydar" under EVERY ccTLD? I can see one and maybe a note on their use of other ccTLDs, but the current list is a littel suspiscious. 68.39.174.238 08:51, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: totally agreed. good initiative. Aroundthewayboy 19:48, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Err...? 

message: Does anybody have any history about the site
* when was it setup
* who set it up
* has it's ownership changed
* how has it grown over the years - uniformly, or not
* how profitable is it
btw, this is my first discussion edit, so apologies in advance if i've screwed it up !
Reluctantregistrant 13:13, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The death of Gary Frisch has brought to light a lot of the questions you have asked. Such as  page on The Times Online. It states how it was set up, why it was set up, when it was set up, how big it is, how influential it's founder was in the Gay world and such. JayKeaton 00:25, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  History of the site ? 

message: Shouldn't there by a biography or something about Gary Frisch?  Since his "page" just redirects to this one (seems odd) there should be something about him, especially since he just died.  gar in Oakland 02:49, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gary Frisch 

message: I've edited this as it referred to 'raised levels of Ketamine' in his liver. This is what it says in the referenced article, though that article presents things the pathologist and others actually said in double quotes, whilst this is an indirect quote. 'raised level of ketamine' would suggest that some level of ketamine is natural and normal, like 'raised levels of salt'. This is obviously not the case and probably a misquote or mistake in the original article. I was not comfortable changing this to 'high levels' so I just changed it to 'Ketamine was found'Adagio67 (talk) 13:03, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Death of co-founder section 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Gaydar (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/20080704211658/http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/this_britain/article2516664.ece to http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/this_britain/article2516664.ece
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://uk.gay.com/headlines/11416
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:44, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Gaydar (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/20060702072011/http://www.positivenation.co.uk/issue89/features/feature6/feature6.htm to http://www.positivenation.co.uk/issue89/features/feature6/feature6.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:21, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Gaydar (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/20070220173724/http://www.intellagencia.com/news.asp?siteid=4&id=73621 to http://www.intellagencia.com/news.asp?siteid=4&id=73621
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:14, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Currently article says Gaydar's "Website" link is http://www.gaydar.co.uk/ , but that forwards to https://www.gaydar.net/ . But (of the archive.org archives) the latest one were the website was at gaydar.co.uk was on 2013 November 25 with the next Wayback on November 29 redirecting to gaydar.net. Is it ok to update article's Website link to point to www.gaydar.net ? --EarthFurst (talk) 07:58, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gaydar moved to gaydar.net in late 2013 

message: As I recall, there is or was a dating website in the style of Gaydar but for lesbian and bi women, called GaydarGirls. If this has folded, or even if it hasn't, mention ought to be made of it in the history of Gaydar.
Nuttyskin (talk) 21:35, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  GaydarGirls