Talk:Questia Online Library

message: Questia, to me is the best source of journal and research studies that can be found presently in the field of Psychology. These books, journals and articles are not part of the popular psychology periodicals:Psychology Today,or American Psychologist, that offer subscriptions.
When someone is researching a topic, the person has to do some detective work to find the best book or article, for his/her paper. This helps the student/researcher in my opinion.In may,2010 Questia was purchased by another company. I certainly hope all of the best attributes of Questia remain
the same. It would be difficult to find anything quite as good.  99.103.209.17 (talk) 14:17, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I've used Questia for over a year and highly recommend it. I do not have easy access to a research library---but even if I lived onb a campus I would be using this very convenient resource. Rjensen 02:15, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. I guess I will have to treat myself to this resource very soon!Giovanni33 02:16, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notability 

message: Assuming that the Questia service is notable, the article should be neutral.  The present text reads like it was pulled straight from the service's own publicity.  How does it compare, technically and in terms of resource quality and breadth, to other models of aggregated academic resources, e.g. Intute ? Matt Whyndham 16:40, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  There are no outlandish claims, just straight facts. Questia has far more text that Intute, which is basically a card catalog. It has maybe 20x as many books as the ACLS ebooks (which is subscription based). Rjensen 00:17, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutrality 

message: Recently an IP address registered to Cengage edited the page in a good faith attempt to update it. However, I reverted it because it still came across promotional. The user contacted me on my talk page here, after which I edited the page to reflect the updated information in a less promotional tone. I had to use primary, non-independent sources, but I have only written plain facts, without, I hope, promotional language. I ask other editors to review and refine, if they think it necessary. Thanks, BethNaught (talk) 20:44, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edits by Cengage IP 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Questia Online Library. 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 http://web.archive.org/web/20100426002917/http://blog.gale.com:80/pressroom/corporate-news/gale-acquires-questia/ to http://blog.gale.com/pressroom/corporate-news/gale-acquires-questia/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:47, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Although I could not provide a link as it was an email, this is a picture of the shutdown notice.
Johnd39 (talk) 04:36, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shutdown of Questia