Talk:Lulu.com

message: For transparency sake, please keep the references to Wikipedia censorship against Lulu links in. It is true, it is relevant, and people must be aware of it. Wikipedia cannot claim to be a free encyclopedia if it prohibits perfectly valid links to sources of information. See e.g. here about power abuse by wikipedians.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.177.212.225 (talk) 13:33, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Censorship warning

message: The pricing process was not correct and there is no "exclusive publication contract" for Global Distribution through Lulu. A "Published by Lulu" ISBN names Lulu as publisher, but a "Published by You" ISBN lets the creator be the publisher. Also, "Lulu-owned ISBNs" may be used to distribute the book outside of Lulu on databases and online retailers. A "Lulu-owned ISBN" just means that the content is associated with a Lulu-ISBN (just as the ISBN of a book published through a traditional publishing company would be associated with that company).
This article has had some problems with POV recently. In particular, user Carolynhack inserted an extremely long apologia for Lulu's handling of the UK issue. I've trimmed it back to a short paragraph, to put it more in proportion to the rest of the article.--24.52.254.62 04:16, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV

message: I'm not sure about the paragraph claiming that lulu has support issues with pdf files. I personally created a book on lulu for global distribution using "cutepdf" and have had no problems.  At any rate, it sounds like somebody wanted to vent ...
: I recently read the site and it appears they had some problems with files generated by older versions of Ghostscript. Since Ghostscript come bundled as a part of some applications they may use an older version. Anyway, I've added a fact tag for it. // Liftarn
:I've provided citations for all the statements in that paragraph.--24.52.254.62 20:17, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see any contradiction between your statement and any of the statements in the article.--76.81.164.27 22:41, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  lulu pdf support issues 

message: This article has a history of inappropriate edits that seem aimed at astroturfing for lulu. On October 18, 2006, user Carolynhack inserted a long, argumentative, pov section titled "Lulu's Right of Reply," which I later edited down so that it made the same points in a couple of sentences, and in a more appropriate, encyclopedic way. (The Carolynhack account was never used to edit any other article except the lulu.com one.) On April 9, 2007, user 172.159.96.168 deleted almost all of the article, left it in a state where the formatting was messed up, and inserted the nonsense string "ejw." I've reverted the article to its state before that edit.--76.81.164.27 18:05, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: vandalism, npov

message: This section was removed because though Lulu has print partners worldwide, the information below isn't valid.
"including Colorcentric in New York, Publidisa in Spain and the UK, and Lightning Source."
Should this read "including Colorcentric in New York, Publidisa in Spain and Lightning Source in the UK." ? Publidisa http://www.publidisa.com/inter_ing.html don't appear to have a UK opperation, whereas Lightning Source does.
:It looks to me like the article originally stated this correctly, but later edits mixed things up and introduced the error you quoted. I've reinserted the earlier, correct version of the text.--76.81.180.3 22:32, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Production Locations

message: This page needs moving and renaming, the company isn't called Lulu.com, it's simply called Lulu. I propose a move to Lulu (publisher). Ben W Bell talk 08:22, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Be bold and do it! UnitedStatesian 11:13, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Just wanted to check with others. Ben W Bell talk 16:24, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page move and rename 

message: I have to question the accuracy of the claim that no open source derived PDF's will work.  I do not have acrobat and generated my PDF's using Open Office software, and Lulu had no trouble publishing the book I wrote.  Besides that, Microsoft Word may be far from open source but its not Adobe Acrobat and Word *.doc files can be accepted or converted (whether generated by Microsoft of open source software).  Obviously, the claim that only open source derived PDF's are not supported and Adobe Acrobat is required is simple not true. --68.84.95.166 23:18, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you look back carefully at the article, it's not saying what you think it's saying. The statements in the article are also all carefully sourced.--76.81.180.3 23:07, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This may be some sort of ongoing game, but "carefully sourced" is not the same as reliable sources. The author of the website may be argued to be as an expert, but he has no other notable mentions other than his association with lulu. And I found the paragraph confusing as well. Flowanda | Talk 02:21, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Reference [5] is to the information on lulu's own site. I would consider that a reliable source for information about lulu's policies.--76.81.180.3 22:27, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I've removed it as completely unnecessary. Lulu will provide these services to anyone so having a statement that it provides them to small publishers is completely unnecessary. Ben W Bell talk 12:57, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Acrobat Required?  No Open Source? 

message: I have added a sentence indicating that Lulu Publishing provides printing and distribution services to small publishers based on the fact that CD Publishing uses Lulu for these services and this is evident from their website: cdpublishing.org. Robert 12:13, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed it as completely unnecessary. Lulu will provide these services to anyone so having a statement that it provides them to small publishers is completely unnecessary. Ben W Bell talk 12:57, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Added better description of services 

message: In my opinion, the critisims are basically the basis of this article. Can't find much positive stuff here.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.109.13.174 (talk) 01:03, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the new "Short Margins for Bookstores" section is probably what was fostering this impression. It was written in a very POV, argumentative, unencyclopedic tone, and its length was out of proportion to the facts it presented. I've drastically shortened it, and rewritten it with a more NPOV flavor. I think this takes care of the concern expressed by the person who added the { { tone } } template, so I've removed the template.--76.81.180.3 14:38, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Where specifically? I thought the article was mostly positive. Sunshine Warrior04 (talk) 16:02, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Negatvity 

message: Very un-encyclopaedic.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Equal Enjoy (talk • contribs) 06:34, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See comment above, under "Negativity."--76.81.180.3 14:38, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Tone

message: WP won't allow their link, since even their home page is considered spam.  But here are the prices this vanity press charges:
:Starter Pack, $500.00
:Advantage Pack, $650.00
:Marketing Pack, $350.00
:To call this company anything but a vanity press is to lie about what they are doing. Qworty (talk) 02:11, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: *All three packs you mention aren't for printing as such beyond the standard one copy of a book: they specifically address marketing, review, formatting, cover design and promotional materials. They are selling services, not printing. The question is what do they charge for printing, which is the cost of one book for the author. Additional books can be purchased by the author, but the author doesn't need to - instead they rely on print-on-demand to sell copies straight to the public. - Bilby (talk) 02:34, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Here and in your comments above you are unwittingly doing nothing more than repeating the company's lies.  My god, I don't want to get into a ten-year debate with you on this.  But you are using all of those terms falsely.  POD, for instance, is a printing technique--it has NOTHING to do with vanity versus self-publishing.  You are even using "self publishing" incorrectly--"self publishing" occurs when a writer publishes himself directly, doing all of the publishing work himself, NOT when he goes through a third-party such as Lulu.  The bottom line is that any entity that charges a writer for publication is a vanity press, period period period.  They can lie about it all they want and throw around terms that are misunderstood by people like you.  It doesn't matter.  Lulu CHARGES people for publication (and the other things you mention, "marketing, review, formatting, cover design and promotional materials" are all part of PUBLICATION, for god's sake).  So what are you going to do, make me repeat all of this to you and everybody else over and over and over and over and over again?  We don't need to have this "debate" or any kind of edit war.  They're a vanity press and that's all there is to it. Qworty (talk) 02:48, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

text: I can see that indeed I'm going to get into a spiral of repeating myself over and over and over and over again here.  Print on Demand is nothing more or less than a technology.  It has NOTHING specific to do with vanity presses, self-published authors, or traditional presses.  All three of these can use POD as a technology, and all three do so from time to time.  POD is NOT the issue here.  Except, of course, that modern vanity presses like to lie about who they are by calling themselves "POD."  There's no reason to repeat their lies here. Qworty (talk) 03:00, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

text: I must ask how you are defining vanity press, as as has been mentioned it isn't just individuals who use Lulu's services but companies, corporations and other organisations who actually use them to print profitable books and materials. Canterbury Tail talk 03:02, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: A vanity press is any entity that publishes any individual who pays for publication.  That is what Lulu does.  You or anyone else could use them right now--so long as you paid.  Do you deny that this is the truth?  It IS the truth. Qworty (talk) 03:07, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes they are like any printers that are not inhouse printers in that they will print materials for anyone who can pay what they ask. I don't deny that, but by your definition any printers can be called a Vanity Press as anyone can pay to have stuff printed. Canterbury Tail talk 03:08, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

text: *I'm not interested in an edit war or anything silly - my interest here is being fair and accurate about a company when it is included in Wikipedia. And I am aware of the distinctions you mention. I'm not arguing that the term "vanity press" doesn't describe some of what Lulu does. I'm suggesting that the term is derogatory, doesn't fully capture their business model, and can be reasonably replaced with "self publishing company" (as opposed to "self publishing"). The Wikipedia entry on self publishing includes vanity press, but it also distinguishes that from POD. In the entry linked above, it states "vanity publishers make the majority of their money from fees charged to the creators for publishing services, rather than from sales of the published material to retailers or consumers." The POD model moves the focus from the author as the primary market to the readers, as Lulu make much of their money from sales of the books to consumers, not to authors. At any rate, this article has had numerous POV issues, so if one term that is POV can be reasonably replaced with one that is not, yet captures the same content, it seems to me that it is a reasonable change. - Bilby (talk) 03:09, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You are not being fair or accurate.  Most of their sales are to authors, not to the book-buying public at large.  There's no reason to censor that fact from the article.  Shall we take this up a notch to WP:RS, or will you edit war to scrub out WP:RS as well? Qworty (talk) 03:15, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I'm not sure what you're referring to with the WP:RS points. That aside, there's no wish to censor that out - I'd like a source that supports it, but I don't see an issue with mentioning it. My issue is only with strongly POV terms that can reasonably be replaced with less POV terms that serve exactly the same purpose and may be more appropriate. - Bilby (talk) 03:31, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If that's really what you believe, then you should revert your own edits, because all you've done is throw in extremely POV terms that are not only inappropriate but false. Qworty (talk) 03:36, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I suspect that you're a tad confused - I've made one edit, and that edit was to remove a POV term. At any rate, I've sourced an RS that distinguishes Lulu from vanity publishing, so it should be all good now. - Bilby (talk) 03:40, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

text: * I haven't seen accurate breakdowns on their figures, with one of the better references stating that a reliable breakdown might be almost impossible to get. However, The News & Observer quotes sales of 167,000 per month, off 45,000 titles for sale on their website. It doesn't mean much, but it suggests that they sell multiple copies. I've seen a few people mentioning that they believe sales would be mostly to authors as well, but not yet with any support. - Bilby (talk) 12:20, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

text: * They seem like reasonable figures. Most (reliable) sources refer to "only dozens" of copies being sold per book (with some notable exceptions being much higher than this), but that is a tad higher than the author and immediate family only, so it seems that they are generating revenue from sales to the general public. As far as I can tell, arguments that they are a vanity press tend to boil down to their lack of editorial oversight, which seems to be a valid point. But they don't behave like a traditional vanity press, either. So I'm inclined to agree with you and say that they are a digital printing and fulfillment house, or something else along those lines, unless I can see a better argument to the contrary. - Bilby (talk) 14:24, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  What this vanity press charges 

message: I think the page should be moved to a different name. As Lulu themselves state they are not actually a publisher, they are a printing and fulfillment house (who now happens to offer some other optional services) not a publisher. Canterbury Tail talk 15:24, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: * Could just go generic - Lulu (company), as per Transworld (company) - Bilby (talk) 15:46, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: *Makes sense to me. Haukur (talk) 20:39, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems a reasonable name. Canterbury Tail talk 21:13, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

text: They do do more than just printing though, the other primary component of their business is as a fulfillment house something vanity presses don't do. They also do editing and marketing as an optional service. Lulu (company) is probably the best version. Canterbury Tail talk 22:01, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I went ahead with the move to 'company'. Haukur (talk) 07:12, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page move 

message: Ben W Bell reverted my edit about support for open formats, I think because the link in the reference to lulux.com made him think it was fishy. The reason the link is to lulux.com is because WP's spam filters are automatically disallowing links to lulu.com. I've requested that the blacklisting of lulu.com be removed. I'm going to re-revert.--76.167.77.165 (talk) 01:52, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Oops, my mistake, he didn't delete it, he just put in a cn tag.--76.167.77.165 (talk) 02:05, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Faked links should not be added, as that's viewed as a form of bypassing site policies about blacklisting, and therefore a form of disruption to Wikipedia.  Note also that forums rarely if ever qualify as reliable sources.  The link to the policies may be permitted, but the specific link should be submitted to WT:WHITELIST, to allow the specific good link, rather than opening the entire domain. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 02:19, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've initiated the process of requesting that the blacklist on lulu.com be removed or modified. The article is about lulu.com, and already includes, naturally enough, a large number of references that link to lulu.com. If we need to add more references to lulu.com, it's clearly not correct for the blacklist to be preventing us from doing that.--76.167.77.165 (talk) 02:59, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Which is why the whitelist exists - to permit specific links.  To initiate the process, you should submit specific links that you want to permit to WT:WHITELIST (as had been done with the references that are already included in the article that point to lulu.com).  Submitting a request to de-blacklist is not the correct procedure, and will almost certainly be declined (just as prior requests have been treated - this isn't the first - far too many spam links created towards that domain to do this the other way around). --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 03:13, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

text: I think part of the problem is also that only ones created with Acrobat are guaranteed to fully meet all the requirements of the full PDF specification and features. Many of the open source and third party PDF creators don't produce fully compliant PDFs. With Lulu it's most likely a case that other PDFs may work, and they'll take them, but they can only guarantee the conversion to print 100% if produced with Acrobat due to the non-100% compliance of some third party ones. Canterbury Tail talk 11:48, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That sounds about right - they don't seem to have an aversion to open source, and will accept PDFs from anything for printing, (and will produce PDFs), but won't accept them for direct distribution. So presumably they want to know that the files for distribution are fully compliant. - Bilby (talk) 12:02, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: pdf, acrobat, and open formats

message: It looks like from these comments, that this page used to be an advertising tract, as evidenced by one comment that seemed to claim lulu.com was astroturfing with contributions toward this page.
If this is true, at it's current state, it has swung too far the other way and needs a lot of work.  It's way too negative toward lulu.com.  It needs to be neutralized.
Fredsmith2 (talk) 21:31, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  npov swung the other way 

message: Shouldn't the article cover the subject matter that Lulu publishes?  There's a lot of info on the mechanics of how the books are published, but there ought to be something that points out what Lulu covers well.  For instance, on the top-sellers lists there seem to be a -lot- of books about web design.  Some articles written about Lulu talk about titles they feel are notable, and some of the books have been reviewed in other media.  I'm going to take a shot at this. Squidfryerchef (talk) 19:39, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Done.  Looks like we have those bases covered now. Squidfryerchef (talk) 20:59, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Needs coverage on topics, famous books, etc. 

message: The introduction refers to Lulu as simply a "press" and yet the very first sentence under "Overview" calls it a publisher. 
Bob himself has refered to Lulu as "a technology company," a "self publishing" company, a publisher, etc. The truth of the matter is — Lulu is a company of DIVERSE and INNOVATIVE functions. It can be used as a publishing company, a co-publisher, a printing press, and a technological company. Lulu almost defies concrete description but it is undeniably all of these and more.
Because of the diverse and innovative services they offer, a few critics originally described Lulu as sitting somewhere between a traditional publishing company on one side and a variation of a vanity press, although a more respectable version, on the other. Others strongly disagreed by saying it was a traditional publisher. David Rani noted that, unlike vanity press publishers, Lulu didn’t charge authors an upfront fee. Linda Stilborne stated that Lulu was not a variation of a vanity press at all, reporting that authors would find Lulu "affordable" and "books that are not worth reading still won't sell." The Times denied that Lulu was a vanity press, stating that it was "a collision of the web, new printing technology and a universal yearning to vent and dazzle” instead. Self Publishing News listed Lulu as a self publishing company. Lulu consistantly ranked number one on Self Publishing web sites.  Author Maya Reynolds described Lulu as a subsidy publisher. Over time Lulu became known more as “a different kind of traditional publisher” that also offered additional services. Today most consider Lulu to be more of an innovative and diverse combination of a "different kind of publishing company," a co-publisher working with outside publishing companies, a printing company for outside publishing companies, a tool for self publishers, and a technology company.
DSnow101 (talk) 05:59, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It's obviously a vanity publishing company that tries to camouflage itself. It tries to camouflage itself because vanity publishing is inherently a scam. Its clients, many of whom have been editing this article, defend it vigorously because they are inherently party to the deception: that's the nature of vanity publishing. TheScotch (talk) 06:26, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not too  familiar with Vanity Publishing. Is this necessarily a bad thing? Sunshine Warrior04 (talk) 02:33, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: You are lucky not to be familiar with vanity publishing and yes, it can be a very bad thing. Too often vanity publishing is a scam that preys upon an author's desire to see themself in print while charging outrageous and sometimes hidden fees and often tie up the author's rights to their own work. A person may use a publishing service like Lulu, CreateSpace, TheBookPatch etc out of vanity (i.e. for ego boost) or to get in print a book on a specialty subject with little commercial value, but basically Lulu and other similar publishing services provide the independent small press and self-published author with the means to see their work in print and you get what you pay for and they accurately report sales. Vanity publishing takes undue advantage of that desire and very often robs people blind, charging for cover work or editing that is not done or done haphazardly (and in some cases vanity publishers don't even sell books or do not report to the author accurate figures on books sold and short the author on royalty payments.) -- Naaman Brown (talk) 14:16, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Press? 

message: I'm going to assume that the executive summary for the arguments to move this article go along the lines of "there are lots of other companies which go by the name "Lulu"". If none of those companies have articles on Wikipedia, then they are irrelevant; we only disambiguate titles where they conflict with other articles on Wikipedia, not where they may conflict with arbitrary things in the real world which don't have articles. Please see Wikipedia: Naming conventions (companies) for why the article is at "name (parentheses)" and not "Company's Full Name, Inc". Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 16:34, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The main problem with the present title is ambiguity—it doesn't say anything. It is neither a proper name nor is it descriptive. CWatchman (talk) 16:54, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  That it is apparently (from the discussion above) difficult to tell exactly what kind of company Lulu is would seem to suggest that just using "(company)" is ideal. See the section below. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 17:36, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too long, didn't read 

message: What is Lulu Enterprises in relation to Lulu Press?  Are they different business units within the company, or do both names refer to the same thing?  I'm not too familiar with "Enterprises", but I've always known the publisher as "Lulu Press".  At any rate, I don't find the debate over a move constructive.  Best solution is to create redirects here for the names "Lulu Press" and "Lulu Enterprises", and mention both and any distinctions between in the article. Squidfryerchef (talk) 17:21, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Lulu Enterprises is the parent company. Lulu Press, although a separate incorporation, operates more or less as a division of Lulu Enterprises. Both are collectively referred to by the public simply as "Lulu."  Lulu Press acts more as a press for outside publishing companies and corporate businesses. Lulu Enterprises acts more as a tool for individual self publishers, creators of CDs, ect. However they are collectively "Lulu," so Lulu does it all. The different incorporations have more to do with legal matters and taxes more than anything else. To complicate matters more Lulu has a third company called Lulu Technology Circus. I think it would be good to follow your advice and create redirects for the names "Lulu Press" and "Lulu Enterprises" and I will leave that for someone more knowledgable than I to do. As for the debate over the name of the article I think that my above propoasal of mentioning both of the companies in the article will suffice. BTW, the article lists Lulu as being founded in 2003 when in reality it was founded in 2002. I changed this but someone reverted my change. The correct date should be looked into. Thank you. DSnow101 (talk) 23:04, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I also thought the title "Lulu (company)" was awkward and considered renaming it to "Lulu Press".  But after reading about all the different subsidiaries, Lulu (company) is the wisest choice.  I created redirects for Lulu Press and Lulu Enterprises as more likely search terms.  I don't know which date is right.  Which is more supported by our cited sources?  It's also possible different parts were incorporated on different dates.  You might want to see if North Carolina puts incorporation records and DBA (doing-business-as) names online; those will have dates.  Also you can check the USPTO trademark registry to see if/when they applied for a trademark. Squidfryerchef (talk) 01:45, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Difference between Lulu Enterprises and Lulu Press? 

message: All except for the first criticism (the UK problem) aren't Lulu-specific, they're standard features of Print On Demand (POD) companies.  It's a bit like including "does not drive on roads" as a criticism in the Submarine article.  IMO, it would be better to list these criticisms in the POD article and say in this article "Lulu is a print on demand company.  Common criticisms of print on demand companies also apply to Lulu". --Irrevenant [ talk ] 08:37, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism of Lulu vs Criticism of Print on Demand 

message: This long list of my edits were intended to (1) improve some of the citations, tagging where needed, and (2) remove all spamblock filtered lulu URL patterns because the spamblock filter made editing quite painful. To do this I had to make all www dot lulu dot com URLs so crippled that they will not be usable, but that editors will be able to copy and paste them without triggering the filter (except the first section, see below). Also I found I had to cripple even the archive.org links for old lulu.com pages. All except the very first section, which the spamfilter appears not to notice, see the http://web.archive.org/web/20080420153724/http://www.lulu.com/en/index.php there for example (a bug?). I have left them there, because they appear to be the only archive links of lulu dot com that remain usable. Unless someone has a better way to "get around" this filter? -84user (talk) 16:14, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: We could probably go to the spam filter noticeboard and ask that Lulu be removed from the blacklist or downgraded to the XlinkBot list.  At one point I saw the argument where Lulu was added, and it wasn't originally about Lulu but about some other websites and then Lulu got added to the discussion.  I don't believe they ever made a convincing case for putting Lulu on the blacklist, and I think having it on the blacklist is disrupting our article on them. Squidfryerchef (talk) 19:37, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  All spamblock filtered text patterns removed 

message: Using Lulu can be very confusing and their own resources are self-contradictory. Could anyone provide links in the articles to critical articles, help pages not under their control, etc.? Lulu is a good idea, but the people who run it have no concept of linking pages in ways that will actually deliver required information. If that information is available elsewhere then providing it to Wikipedia readers could be a great service. P0M (talk) 02:57, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: That is however not what Wikipedia is for. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a how to manual or a collection of links. Canterbury Tail talk 12:11, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: For many years, Lulu.com hosted a forum for the authors and publishers of its service. In 2019, this forum moved to an independant provider, but it's still the place of exchange between newcomers and experienced users of Lulu. Eruedin (talk) 13:58, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Any sources of help or places to provide instructions that are not Lulu controlled 

message: The article currently has one weird sentence:
:(returns are not accepted, which limits distribution to physical bookstores)
The way I read this, it means that distribution of Lulu books is limited to, i.e., has no greater sphere of activity than, physical bookstores. That idea is incorrect. Physical bookstores can carry Lulu books.
Probably the writer was trying to indicate that physical bookstores are reluctant to buy copies of books that they cannot return.P0M (talk) 00:39, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Strange English 

message: One error on this Wiki page is re:  costs for distribution/marketing.  If your book meets requirements (size, length, etc.), there are no costs for this service.  
67.3.99.181 (talk) 21:32, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  distribution 

message: I've just tweaked the article to remove some text which seemed to be trying to gloss over the fact that this is a self publishing firm. For instance, claiming that editors aren't assigned as this is a strategy to keep prices down is nonsense - the standard business model for self-publishers is to produce whatever the customer wants printed with little or no external quality control taking place. Nick-D (talk) 10:35, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spammy prose removed 

message: The external link to their website is outdated. But it can't be updated to their current link because it's banned by the spam filter (which is why neither can actually be quoted and saved here). Flipping Mackerel (talk) 01:08, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  It can be bypassed by using Wikidata. Chmarkine (talk) 23:53, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  External link 

message: I've suggested the Lulu Blooker Prize article be merged into this topic. The prize itself is not notable and short-lived -- only awarded twice -- and wouldn't be notable without the notability of the parent company. -- Mikeblas (talk) 16:24, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Done! Rob (talk) 21:47, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge 

message: The name of this article has been intelligently debated here, here and here but Lulu (company) still strikes me as wrong. The company, I'd argue, is non-notable. Only notable is the service it offers: a popular print-on-demand website. I suggest renaming to Lulu.com or Lulu (website).
As precedents, Twitter, Delicious, Kickstarter and Vimeo are not primarily articles about companies. A subtle distinction perhaps, but the focus in each case is the service, not the administration. Rob (talk) 05:49, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggested rename

message: Not mentioned in article. 31.50.70.172 (talk) 23:17, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Good question. I've started Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 November 26. Dougweller (talk) 09:52, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why does "Elise Sutton" redirect here? 

message: Lulu recently appointed former COO Kathy Hensgen as new CEO (see https://www.prweb.com/releases/lulu_coms_latest_growth_curve_just_shattered_their_glass_ceiling/prweb18032850.htm). I don't want to edit the page myself since I have a conflict of interest. Could you please help with updating the page? Ckepper (talk) 18:57, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested Edit: New CEO