Talk:Specsavers/Archives/2013

Specsavers vs. Glassesdirect

As I indicated to Jiff78 in the Glassesdirect talk page, I personally consider that both articles are written to promote their respective businesses. The difference here, however, is that Specsavers claims notability by having over 750 stores across Europe, whereas Glassesdirect claims to have two stores. I have tagged this article with the {{advert}} tag to indicate that it does seem to read like an advertisement, but the article would probably not be deleted if nominated in AfD. --Bugwit grunt / scribbles 21:00, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

---

Well, I wrote mopst of the current article on Glasses Direct and added the content to the Specsavers article regarding the controvery between the two companies. Let me answer your points:

"I personally consider that both articles are written to promote their respective businesses... Specsavers claims notability by having over 750 stores across Europe" - this is not an excuse for allowing a company to write their own article based on their PR needs! It does prove notability, but that's a separate point. As for whether the article is written by a PR company - well, it misses out the charity work and role in Guernsey's local economy that Specsavers is famous for on the island, so I doubt it. Otoh, it also misses out the effect of Gny registration on the company's tax status and reporting. Both these things should be mentioned, but I would have thought a PR company would have been sure to promote this activity: from my visits to the island it's something the company is very proud of.

"Glassesdirect claims to have two stores. " What two stores? It's an online retailer - that's why it's interesting. As an online retailers in the UK it's importance is amply asserted by

-- the number of "Business of the Year" type awards it has won

-- amount of media coverage it has received

-- creating the online spectacle sector in the UK

-- it's the most direct - and therefore interesting - example of an online "disruptive" business facing a conventional opponent who has attempted to close it down using legal regulatory and threats: this issue is of huge importance to anyone concerned with the UK Internet economy, and it certainly gets discussed a lot at investment meetings I attend (I've created wiki content I'm adding on the matter comes from my own work notes).

-- receiving investment from two of the world's most powerful VC's, who have stated they want to turn it into a global business.

The above (all included in the article - which indeed consists of little else) makes GD of considerable importance to anyone interested in either the online health business, UK Internet businesses (the area I'm studying), or European venture capital. These issues make up practically the entire content of the GD article - they are important to anyone interested in the UK Internet economy (which may not be of concern to someone in the US, but Wiki is not just for the US).

The number of "stores" GD possesses is - as with, oh, Amazon - irrelevant. And in each case the actual number is none, not "two". Further, as most the content on GD was identified as being written by me, I would have suggest that you should have contacted me via my talk page if you thought I was a PR company, hmm? Accusing someone of adding PR copy to wiki is a serious matter - although perhaps much less so when it is based on the premise that an online retailer doesn't have a sufficient number of stores to be notable.

Otoh, some of the adjectives - hopefully ones I "inherited" in the GD article were too positive and I have removed them. Umptious 14:43, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

• If you'll look at history of this talk page, you can see that my last edit was dated about a 1 1/2 years before your edits (March 2006 - November 2007), My concerns regarding the promotional tone of this article had nothing to do with the edits you have made, and any comments I had made, including references to "two stores", were related to the article as it was at that time. Obviously, the article has been edited numerous times since then. I'd recommend reviewing the article and talk page histories more carefully in the future before assuming that someone is accusing you of something. Bugwit Speak / Spoken 18:04, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

---

Fair use rationale for Image:Specsavers.gif

Image:Specsavers.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 08:19, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Sadly, this page is repeatedly vandalised, possibly by other opticians as they seem to have reasonable knowledge of the operating of this business. I wonder if this is along the lines of what the GOC would consider "bringing the profession into disrepute". I will contact them and see if they feel action is appropriate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rob970 (talk • contribs) 21:07, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

most recent advert?

How recent is that? Most recent advert I've seen, is a Gordon Ramsay one. There's no mention about that. 82.141.67.203 (talk) 21:48, 14 February 2013 (UTC)