Talk:Hunch (website)

Intro wording

There is a dispute about the intro wording of the article. The two general alternatives below:

Hunch is building the 'taste graph' for the internet, mapping every person to every entity -- and their affinity for that entity.

OR

Hunch is a collective intelligence decision-making system that uses decision trees to make decisions based on users' interest.

I think in general the first sentence should read factually, stating what the entity, Hunch, is rather than what it is doing, or what they hope to do. If the organization has changed in what they are though, this should obviously be reflected in the article.

I would recommend a compromise along the lines of:

Hunch is a web-based collective intelligence "taste-graph" and decision-making system.

Is there a standard phrase for the concept of "taste-graph" that we could use instead? If not, that term should be explained in a very dry factual way. I think in general this change[1] is well-intentioned, and not vandalism, but if we could rework the phrasing to use less neologism and "ad-like" phrases it would be improved. Thoughts? - cohesion 03:32, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I think the article should begin by stating that Hunch is 'a website', or, at the very least, 'a web-based ..... system' or something similar. That is the purpose of the introduction - to state in broad terms what the subject of the article is, in a way that is intelligible to the average reader who may have no knowledge of the subject. The passage I deleted can be worked into the article, as a further explanation. It's the way it was placed at the beginning that made it sound like an ad.

The first time I reverted it I tagged it as vandalism because it sounded somewhat absurd and the edit was not performed by a logged-in user. I agree that it is not vandalism, hence when I reverted it for a second time I didn't tag it as vandalism, although I still consider it inappropriate as an introduction. Dubmill (talk) 22:00, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I didn't realize there was a discussion about this change. I just made a revision to it. Please let me know if you would like to discuss. :) --Dan Leveille^TALK 20:27, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notability?

Hunch has enough notability to have its own Wikipedia article. Further, the article itself has established notability through reliable third party sources. User:NawlinWiki has added Template:notability to the article without specifying where or how it lacks notability. I will be removing this template if the user (or anyone else) does not give any reasoning why the template still applies. Discussion is welcome. --Dan Leveille^TALK 20:44, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

hunch no longer active

Is it active? Right now, for me if I visit hunch.com I land on ebay.com. Has it been sold or shut down perhaps? 85.230.235.163 (talk) 14:45, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can't find anything to say what happened; from archive.org records it disappeared for a few days from March 4 this year, and has been redirecting to eBay since March 7. It was acquired by eBay in 2011, and its blog had barely been updated since a "Hunch is now part of eBay, and great things are coming" post in 2012, so maybe eBay gave up and pulled the plug. --McGeddon (talk) 15:09, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]