Talk:Collaborative real-time editor

Some pointers

• Making the article into a real article instead of a list is good. Very much the best way forward.
• Please don't bold the links. It's ugly, and it's non-standard.
• Please don't link to external sites for the insignificant software. Especially if it's in alpha. Most especially then. WP:NOT a way of building brand, market share, promoting a product etc. If a product is not significant enough for an article, but has some unique feature which demands discussion, discuss it in prose as an emergent feature.
• The industry press has been speculating on whether MS's market stranglehold will be broken since forever. Keep it neutral and WP:CITE sources for anythign which might otherwise look like editorialising. Or better still stick strictly to the verifiable facts (verifiable, that is, from reliable sources) and avoid editorialising at all

One last thing: if next time I look at the article it's got all those redlinks and weblinks back I will have to start throwing my weight around. Please don't make me start whacking the article with my wikimop. Just zis Guy you know? 20:31, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I added a linkfarm tag at the top of the article. Seems like the article has expanded since, and looks like a linkfarm now. I propose removing all external links to software website main pages as a start to cleaning up this article which is currently almost entirely unsourced. --Ronz 00:47, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I removed the following commented out text from the article which was added first (as far as I can tell) with this edit [1]: --Ronz 00:49, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Quote from WP:NOT 'There is nothing wrong with adding a list of content-relevant links to an article; however, excessive lists can dwarf articles and detract from the purpose of Wikipedia'. Therefore please link to internal articles where they exist.

list of editors

There is already a list of collaborative editors in the List of text editors article. However, not all editors from this article are mentioned there. I suggest someone adds them to that list and removes the list in this article. A link to the list article can be added here. I'll commit these changes if I find some time.--Bernard François 09:47, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I moved the contents of that section to this article, and added a {{main}} notice on that section. --Waldir 22:57, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Should Google Docs be added to the list of editors? It seems to fulfill all the criteria of a real-time collaborative editor! Raj (talk) 03:43, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't adobe buzzword be added to the list, it seems to be a collaborative real time editor, but I have been unable to try the collaborative editing out, so I am no entirely sure. Adobe sure is a major player. (Great Slovakia (talk) 13:14, 23 November 2008 (UTC))

This article is being used like an advert for Microsoft and is unfair to other vendors. Otherwise it should really be an advert for Google being more notable in this area. But then thatneither are the product myself use and millions of others use.... I believe references to vendors can be removed and just See also for list of vendors. I will do this sometime.... 31/12/2020 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12think (talk • contribs) 08:26, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Move

I suggest moving the article from Collaborative editor to Collaborative real-time editor, which currently redirects here. I already contacted the user who moved it from there to here, explaining my reasons, and if nobody expresses oposition I'll do it in a few days. Waldir 23:34, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

After the user's reply, and with no opposition here after a week, I marked the redirect for speedy delete to make room for this article to be moved back to that title.

Google Sites

I hear Google Sites is based on JotSpot. Does this mean that Google Sites is real-time collaborative editing? CortlandKlein (talk) 09:07, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

name of article

The proper name for this article is 'real-time collaborative editor', not 'collaborative real-time editor'. In the phrasing, 'collaborative real-time editor', the adjective 'real-time' modifies 'editor', meaning the editor is a real-time editor. However, every editor is a real-time editor, so this says very little. The adjective 'collaborative' then modifies the notion of a real-time editor, which means the phrase ends up referring to an editor that permits collaboration (whether or not that collaboration is in real-time).

The proper phrase is, 'real-time collaborative editor', where the adjective 'real-time' modifies 'collaborative', to signify the collaboration takes place in real-time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by John A. De Goes (talk • contribs) 03:41, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi John. First of all, congratulations on your excellent work in this article. It looks much more readable now. As to your suggestion, I'd fully support a rename, based on the pertinent points you've made. I suppose that in case there is no opposition within a few days, you can safely make the move yourself. I can do that, if you prefer. Waldir ^talk 13:09, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

redlink for nonnotable programs

Collabedit doesn't appear to be notable. Is there a reason for adding a link to it? (No one who's not involved with its development is likely to write a topic). Tedickey (talk) 12:13, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't oppose removing the redlink if that action had a policy to back it up. However, I fail to see a clear measure of notability (or lack of it) compared to the other redlinks on the article. Moreover, personally I'd prefer following the advice from WP:RED: "Red links are what drives Wikipedia growth" and "Good red links help Wikipedia — they encourage new contributors in useful directions, and remind us that Wikipedia is a work in progress"

Of course, if you present reasonable proof that the article is non-notable or unlikely to get ever written, I'd agree with the removal. But not the way you did it the first time -- But note, I'm not telling you yo stop being bold! :) --Waldir ^talk 23:43, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, for context, what I do on each added link to topics on my watchlist is to google to see how many hits I get. The ones that give a lot (50,000 and up) are probably notable. Down around a thousand - or a handful - probably not. At that point, I read through a few screens of hits looking for anything that doesn't look like softpedia, etc (distribution and "reviews" written by the developer). I didn't see that evidence on this editor, so I removed it. (SynchroEdit already passed my first screening, so I'm not likely to challenge it - it's an order of magnitude more, and has some usable links to establish its notability). It seems that about half of the redlinks are added by people advertising a program that they're developing. Some write quick adverts, and then I also see developers adding their programs to topics - and tag those as needed for insufficient notability. Some do the right thing, but generally the sourceforge, etc., developers don't. Of course there's a third category - someone setting out to collect all of the topical items to fill in the redlinks (perhaps you'd like to do that?) Tedickey (talk) 00:31, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Lol, no thanks, I have enough work wikignoming around :)

Thanks for the extensive explanation. In fact, it would suffice to have stated something like "removed non-notable redlink: 5,000 google hits, most of them advertising fluff" -- preferably with a link to the google search for convenience, if you're so inclined! ;)

I'd ask you to be more precise/explicit in the edit summary when performing such edits. Of course, this is just my opinion, feel free to disagree. As for the collabedit entry, I'll remove it myself -- I've bothered you more than enough over this issue. --Waldir ^talk 21:15, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I'll keep that in mind (though I suppose it's best to do that when first going to the discussion page) Tedickey (talk) 21:42, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Dubious

real-time text is NOT supported. Users cannot use the desktop applications to edit the same section of documents stored on SkyDrive in real time. Rather, one user does not see another user's changes until both users have saved the document in sequence. If one user's changes conflict with those of another author, a user must choose which version to keep. There would be no need for users to make such choices if the product supported real-time text editing.--Elvey (talk) 19:14, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

This is totally false; realtime collaboration works, I use it all the time.--John Bessa (talk) 13:06, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Real time collaboration (like google docs) does NOT happen - I have just tested it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.126.96.72 (talk) 11:16, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

SharePoint isn't completely real time; users have to take a save action. If users are editing different parts of the document, there is no issue. I've even done editing within the same paragraph as another user and there wasn't a problem. User1 edits, hits save. User 2 gets updates and sees user1's changes (in addition to the changes s/he has currently unsaved). Bew_TN (talk) 13:06, 13 February 2013 17:46 (UTC)

References

Sophistication Grouping

I think the list of apps should be groupd from those with the most to least sophisticated real-time features. Thoughts? Ideas on what groupings to use? --Elvey (talk) 19:14, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

a sortable table. 84.106.26.81 (talk) 10:49, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Prety nice n creative Sashasands (talk) 15:30, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Mobwrite

My recollection is that Google Docs uses Mobwrite to connect users and Google brought its author on for that purpose. A different developer has implemented Mobwrite on Moodle that uses the FCK editor, making it rich text. From experience, it takes high-speed editing of the same paragraph to get a collision in Mobwrite, but it is not character-to-character compared; I believe phrases are compared (somehow). There is an excellent Youtube by its (highly-geekish) author giving both a good idea of how it works and how complicated this all is.--John Bessa (talk) 13:02, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Cleaning list of current editors

To have the list of current editors is very good as a reference. However, I would make a clean and delete all those that do not have a Wikipedia article (as there are several external links in the list).--Samer.hc (talk) 19:24, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Suggestions

MadEye https://madeye.io/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Swestlake (talk • contribs) 01:34, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

LaTeX web-based collaborative editors: https://www.sharelatex.com https://www.overleaf.com https://papeeria.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by Agilar (talk • contribs) 08:33, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Collaborative real-time editor. 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://arquivo.pt/wayback/20080305043453/http://office.microsoft.com/livecomm/ to http://office.microsoft.com/livecomm/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:20, 2 January 2018 (UTC)