Talk:Picsearch

message: "...they have come under heavy fire for indexing methods..." - Is there any source for this statement? I have not found anything that suggests this to be true.
This "carbon free stuff" is just their attempt to market themselves better - for a seach engine it is *absolutely* irrelevant.
The environmental policy is an important issue for many of Picsearch users, and it is important for Picsearch as well as many other companies who take social responsibility seriously.--Carl Sarnstrand 10:16, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

message: You've taken care pretty much of all of my concerns, but it still looks like an advertisement to me.  Also, the fact that most the links to the article are from Picsearch's own website make it heavily POV.  I'm going to bing a few other places and try to get some other people to look at this, and if they think it's fine, I'll think it's fine too. --Ceas webmaster 16:36, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Links in the article that point to Picsearch's own site are not only not NPOV, they are not citing reliable sources. Picsearch's site is a self-published source, which is generally recognized as an unacceptable source. Statements that cannot be verified by a reliable third-party source should be considered unverifiable and should be removed from the article. -- Schapel 01:18, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you that Picsearch can not claim to be better than any competitor and then refer to our own web site. But this is not the case. All links that goes to Picsearch own site is only describing a business relationship between Picsearch and its partners (and why our partners has choosed to work with Picsearch). There is no more trustworthy source of information of a business relationship than the participating parties.--Carl Sarnstrand 06:56, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That may be the case, but according to Wikipedia official policy, Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, published secondary sources. Please change the article to conform to Wikipedia official policy. This is not the place to debate the validity of such policies. -- Schapel 11:41, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have added four new external sources. --Carl Sarnstrand 23:13, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  nice edits, Mr. Sarnstrand 

message: Ceas webmaster asked me to join the discussion here.  First, let me applaud Ceas webmaster for polite and judicious handling of this.  So often people rant about this kind of thing.  (Of course, Carl Sarnstrand is to be applauded also for cooperating.)
I personally think it is good for both Wikipedia and companies when companies write articles on themselves so long as the proper style is maintained.  This kind of article supplies information to the users, which is a major purpose of Wikipedia.  However, advertisements in any encyclopedia destroys its trustworthiness in the eyes of its users and definitely to be avoided.
I do think there are some problems here, but most of the content can be saved if we rearrange it.  Here are my observations:
# In general, it seems to me that Wikipedia articles tend to give their subject the benefit of the doubt, so I'm not necessarily against the positive light this article throws on Picsearch.
# The flavor of the style is very much like advertising and not very much like an encyclopedia of the stature that Wikipedia aspires to.  The style is actually the largest problem, and it can be rectified by removing content which is largely irrelevant to the company's significance, as well as a great deal of rewording.  Advertising sparkle (e.g. "leading regional brands" in introduction) should be changed to a phrasing that sounds less canned ("major companies")
# I'm not sure why the article emphasizes that it is the first carbon-neutral search engine.  Being carbon-neutral has little significance to a search engine as such; it would be better to title this section as follows: "Environmental efforts"
# A huge number of the citations are from Picsearch's website. This is a lot like calling a witness to the stand to testify in his own interest--it can be helpful, but if the witness has a personal interest and is basically the only witness called, this is not a lot of help.  I would recommend simply removing a lot of the citations.  Try to find news articles to cite.  No more than one-fifth of the citations should be from Picsearch-sponsored material, in my opinion.  Don't get me wrong--this article should have citations, and this is a step in the right direction.
# Regarding the page on Google, it contains substantial negative material about Google, including rebukes for the use of "slogans" such as "Don't be Evil."  And, if I recall correctly, Google has been tagged off-and-on for Point of View in the past, so we shouldn't necessarily rely on it as the standard of a good article.  Not that I'm asking an employee to complain about his own company (I know that is very dangerous and uncomfortable).  It would be good for NPOV if some negative material were included, but by no means is this necessary.
# Ceas webmaster's comment regarding MSN doesn't apply because this ranking has to do with overall search, not image search.
# Finally, there are several spelling and grammar problems, most of which are easily rectifiable.
--Whiteknox 18:36, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  My two cents 

message: I like the idea of being thorough and just. Even though it took me quite a while to assemble all the references I think that Ceas webmaster had some good points. The old article wasn't really good. I have now rewritten it completely and it looks much better.
The language now sounds more like an encyclopedia and not so much as a advertisement:
* Subheader: The world's first carbon neutral search engine -> Environmental policy
* Phrase: Picsearch power several leading internet properties -> Picsearch power several major internet companies
* Phrase: the leading regional brands -> the largest regional search portals
It is true that a lot of references goes to Picsearch own website. There are two reasons:
* There are few articles written about Picsearch in English because we are not an English or American company. The company is primarily a technology provider to other companies, which makes it less interesting for consumer oriented press to write about Picsearch. I could make references to articles in other languages, but it wouldn't make it easier for readers with English mother tongue to understand them.
* The articles written about search engines are few in general and many news articles contain less information than the Picsearch press releases. I think it would be a big mistake to delete the links to the relevant press releases. I would favor complementing them with news articles as well (if they are available).
It is true that the article contains few critical issues about Picsearch.
Picsearch is not a highly controversial company. Picsearch is advanced technology developer and provider, whose partners are more interesting. I would like to point out one semi-controversial facts:
* Picsearch has the hardest family friendly filters in the world, which allows our partners to limit the access to only include family friendly content. But Picsearch is also the first search service in the world to work together with International and National Criminal Police to limit the search ability for commercial child pornography. Maybe I can write a sentence about that when it becomes public tomorrow.
--Carl Sarnstrand 20:32, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Additional changes made 

message: I've edited some of the copy to tone it more to encyclopaedia style. But I think part of the problem is that  a lot of the content probably is in too great a depth for wikipedia. Some of this could be compressed into s section called product information perhaps? Saganaki- 06:57, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Edited out some ad-type copy

message: To Caes webmaster: I've made some changes to the article... I feel we can remove the  tag from the article.. Anyway, as you added that tag, please verify the article and remove it if you feel so...
Regarding accuracy of the article, I'm not very sure... I just copy edited... Have to browse thru and find relevant citations. Meanwhile, wherever you feel the article is not accurate, go ahead and add citation required  tags.
To Carl: I feel the image of the "planet earth" search results are pretty irrelevant. May be search for something like *pornography* and take a snapshot, to illustrate the "family friendliness" of the search or remove the image completely.
Mugunth 08:36, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good idea. I have changed the images. --Carl Sarnstrand 16:31, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ad like article converted... 

message: I dropped wiki comments (denoted by  in the wiki markup) in some places, as well as fixing grammar and tweaking some word choice.
# Changed "family friendly" (without hyphen) to "family-friendly"
#* If Sarnstrand has a problem with this, feel free to change it back. (e.g. if the official name omits the hyphen)
# Under Picsearch#Environmental Policy: Changed the list of bullets to a numbered list.
#* If this is not proper wiki style, feel free to change it back.
# Wikified some dates and things.
That's all for now; I might work on it some more over the next week. --Whiteknox 17:22, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some Notes 

message: He typed in scared chicken and regretted it!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elinbrodrick (talk • contribs) 12:26, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  DAN 

message: I personally think the neutrality tag can be taken off now. I don't think this is currently biased or that it even sounds biased.  In my opinion, there is no need to mention any more negative press in this article.  Moreover, I'm not sure if the article needs any more expansion; I think it is pretty much done.  Great job with the citations, Carl (we still might need to remove a few of the Picsearch references, however). --Whiteknox 17:44, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can we remove the neutrality tag now? --158.158.240.230 12:38, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I also won't strongly object.... but it still feels pov to me --Ceas webmaster 13:19, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Situation as of 7/20/2007 

message: An image used in this article, File:Picsearch image search fron.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: Wikipedia files with no non-free use rationale as of 24 November 2011 
;What should I do?
Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.
* If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale
* If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used.
* If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review
This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 20:44, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: File:Picsearch image search fron.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion