Talk:Stickam/Archive 1

YouTube

Is Stickam mostly popular amongst YouTube users? I'm asking because I've heard it referenced a number of time by YouTube people, but never outside YouTube. If that's the case, can someone produce the necessary citation? A bit iffy 08:03, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

888888
Stickam is popular with some of the habitual bloggers from YouTube. "Mostly popular" as in YouTubers make up the bulk of stickam users? No way, YouTubers are not even close to a majority. Stickam has hundreds of thousands of registered members. Now, if someone uses YouTube (and by "use" I mean makes video blogs all day) they are likely to be the kind of stickam user who sits on stickam all day, showing up as "Live" most of the time. That might make it seem to some people that YouTube is the majority at stickam but it's really a relatively small number of people who are on ALL THE TIME, as opposed to the hundreds of thousands who, (I say this purely for the sake of brevity) "have lives" and are not on for hours/days at a time. YouTubers a majority at stickam? It's a baseless claim really. How would you cite/prove something like that anyway?

It seems to me now that stickam is getting more and more popular, certain web communities are claiming that they are the majority on stickam, as in "We got in on the ground floor, we 'own' stickam, we MADE stickam."

An interesting afterthought : Stickam is filtered on myspace.com, last I checked (this could have been changed, but I don't think so. Someone correct me if I'm wrong). If you try to link your stickam profile from myspace, or use the code to "stick" your cam on your profile (which is the whole point of STICKam), myspace automatically filters the url to gibberish or something. Like almost every rule on myspace, there is a way to get around it, but most people don't know about it. I can only imagine how much bigger stickam would get if myspace allowed people to put stickam in their profiles. That will never happen of course and it's probably for the best.

I've also seen several Stickam "megathreads" on the Something Awful Forums. DS 14:32, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Controversy section taken from NYT article

I added the controversy section. It is longer than the whole rest of the (very short) entry, but I figure the lack of enough info in the rest does not mean it should not have full info on this issue. I tried to add a balanced section: I have absolutely no personal view on the topic, don't use the site, don't lose lots of sleep over porn either, but it seemed to be of interest and worthy of adding. Please don't arbitrarily delete it thinking it was added to slam the site - if you find my writing biased please fix it. If you find it too long, shorten it, of course, or better yet, add more info on the site. Without it it was just minimal rather useless info on the site that told us nothing helpful. I do think it is noteworthy that the site targeting teens (which it does not currently even say - I'll add that) is run by a company that runs a great many live video porn sites. Of course they also own restaurants, and I didn't read that they were Hooters-like places either, and their technical knowledge of streaming live video could lead them to reasonably think of taking on the teen video chat market... The owner is a billionaire after all - he clearly has a head for making good decisions. --06:05, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I re-added it after it was inexplicably removed by an anonymous IP editor, changed the section title from "Controversy", per WP guidelines, and rewrote the section to conform to WP:VERIFY and WP:NPOV. The section should now be in good shape and withstand potential challenges.

I also want to note that this section was removed most recently, albeit prior to the above mentioned revision, by User:66.28.254.175. This IP is registered to Hypermedia Systems, and based on a Google search, this is a company that seems to have some kind of business relationship with Advanced Video Communications. If this is the case, removal of the section in question by this editor represents a serious violation of WP:COI. In any event, the edit was reverted. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 23:21, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This has nothing to do with the flag on the article though? LMK ReginaldTQ (talk) 20:14, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

advertising

This page is advertising a service and should not be allowed, to. Lordrut 14:51, 15 July 2007 (UTC)LordRut[reply]

Apart from it's media mentions in publications such as the New York Times, it is also unique among social networking sites for the way it employs streaming video. It also has a high Alexa ranking. It deserves at least a proper debate.--58.110.246.116 16:21, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stickam Currently Down?

Stickam has disappeared on my end. This is Amaraiel by the way, I have forgotten my password and i'll repost this under my name as soon as I get it up for verification. Is anyone else having the same problem? --24.211.43.82 (talk) 20:18, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

yes it seems to be down.Chris H (talk) 02:53, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stickam appears to be down still for me as well.James Mowery (talk) 01:17, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of celebrities

The list of celebrities that User:Lunaticrave keeps adding is non-encyclopedic - I have removed it again. If it reappears, I will request full protection. UnitedStatesian (talk) 13:56, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

age requirement

It said they require users to be at least 14. A much more accurate way to say it is that they require users to *state* that they are at least 14, so I've made this change. The site may kick people off if it finds out they're underage, and it's fine to mention that, but the sentence as it was only dealt with the signup requirements, so it needed clarifying. 70.242.6.18 (talk) 17:42, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Removed TOS controversy

Every site has people who don't always follow the TOS and it is not worth mentioning on this site nor mentioning a site meant to embarrass people either. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.69.255.88 (talk) 17:14, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

tags