Talk:Thumbshot

	This article is part of WikiProject Websites, an attempt to create and link together articles about the major websites on the web. To participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.WebsitesWikipedia:WikiProject WebsitesTemplate:WikiProject WebsitesWebsites articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Computing.
	An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article.

Alexa

Alexa no longer offers free thumbshots, they charge a fixed fee per number of impressions:

Pricing

   * Pay only for what you use. There is no minimum fee, and no start-up cost.
   * $0.0002 / thumbnail returned (i.e. $0.20 per 1,000 thumbnails)
   * No charge if the thumbnail does not exist

Maybe link should be removed or specified in the link title that it's not free

Spam

Guys, I understand your spam policy! FYI, Girafa.com is the leader provider and developer of the thumbnails/thumbshots technology. Girafa was the first to provide such service and its technology is patented. I am not trying to spam, but just to show the truth and the reality! Thanks.

It doesn't matter; Wikipedia doesn't provide commercial links unless there is good reason to. Quite honestly, I don't think any of the links should be in this article, but definitely not the link to Girafa. Peyna 16:02, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ha, I was in the middle of writing a rather different response. Anonymous user, thanks for your note. It does set you apart from the large group of spammers. And it gives us a chance to find a mutually satisfying solution. Can you provide any sources for the claim that Girafa was first? Their website says the company was founded in 1999, but doesn't say when they started providing thumbshots. I did find a guy who says he was using Girafa thumbshots in 1999: [1]. I tried searching for info about thumbshots.org from 1999 but.... it's difficult to search for them because so many pages that have thumbshots include a credit to that site. In any case, I don't think we need to link to ICQ. FreplySpang (talk) 16:14, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted to a slightly older more neutral version, especially since it is unlikely we will be able to conclude who first used them and in what way and until it is verifiable it shouldn't be included. (I accidently marked the edit as minor). Peyna 16:40, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Peyna! FreplySpang (talk) 16:40, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It is clear that Peyna is spamming for thumbshots. I am an editor for DMOZ as well and when I googled, I found that Girafa.com were first to offer this service - NOT debatable at all. Jerome-- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.253.58.134 (talk • contribs) 12:54, January 16, 2006

Girafa

Girafa.com was the first to offer thumbshots. Girafa.com was established in 1999, and has started providing thumbshots in 1999/2000 (http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.girafa.com). Moreover, Girafa.com has applied for a patent on this technology in 1999. Thus it is NOT debatable!!! Lets just clear things up, and write the truth! Isn't thats what s Wikipedia is all about?

For more information please check: [2] [3]

Thanks. —the preceding unsigned comment is by 213.8.83.40 (talk • contribs) 11:50, January 3, 2006

A patent application does not establish priority. Even if the patent issues, it doesn't prove that they were the first, because it can still be challenged, and the USPTO does not write or read all history, it works off of limited databases. It is actually highly likely that thumbshots WERE being used by other people prior to Girafa providing them on such a large scale, which would make them not the first. At any rate, the articles you provide don't prove anything. Their method of providing thumbshots may be novel, but that doesn't make them the first to use them. In the end, I don't think the article needs to mention at all who was among the first to use them, especially when it can't be proven. Peyna 22:48, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It looks that Peyna is the spammer! Please don't delete comments! And write the truth! —the preceding unsigned comment is by 213.8.83.40 (talk • contribs) 09:47, January 8, 2006

No one has deleted comments. They have reverted changes you made to other users' comments. I have not added spam to this page, or any other page on Wikipedia, so if you're going to make such an accusation, please back it up with evidence. Peyna 17:23, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:213.8.83.40 continues to reverse reverts to the article to restore the link. Blocking may be appropriate here. (Oh, Google and their darn linking algorithm!) Wrathchild 16:11, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Girafa.com was the first to offer thumbshots. Girafa.com was established in 1999, and has started providing thumbshots in 1999/2000 (http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.girafa.com). Moreover, Girafa.com has applied for a patent on this technology in 1999. Thus it is NOT debatable!!! Lets just clear things up, and write the truth! Isn't thats what s Wikipedia is all about? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.8.83.40 (talk • contribs) 11:38, January 9, 2006..

Sources. Please provide sources beyond your say-so. An article in a major newspaper, perhaps, or a technical journal? Wrathchild 16:50, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is about verifiability. Peyna 22:33, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Verifiability: well, editors, just do a google search and you find the reality. Girafa.com were first! Peyna and Wratchild are clearly the spammers who would not like to see the truth that Girafa.com were the first - very easy to decide and find out - come on editors of Wiki - do your job here. Jerome-- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.253.58.134 (talk • contribs) 12:54, January 16, 2006

I've wasted enough time trying to figure out who was first, and have been unable to find any proof that Girafa was the first. You find the proof, give us some evidence, and then we can talk. Peyna 20:24, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is clear that you have not! All you did at first was spam, and then when some people caught you! you decided to stop, which is good. But if you want to be honest, evidence is out there with just couple of clicks away... Follow the links herein and see for yourself, stop hiding behind a 'mask'! Jerome-- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.253.58.134 (talk • contribs) 11:36, January 17, 2006

dmoz and Thumbshots

The Open Directory Project doesn't actually use thumbshots. thumbshots.net (part of thumbshots.org) uses data from the ODP to present their version of the directory. I'm not sure how to incorporate that into the article, however. You can call me Al 20:42, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I did what I could. Wrathchild 14:34, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, asshole! Stop editing other peoples' comments. Wrathchild 17:02, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is clear from here that they are still spamming - these techniques are bad and you don't look good - be truthful. Jerome-- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.253.58.134 (talk • contribs) 12:54, January 16, 2006

Who is "they"? I am not affiliated with Thumbshots. I'm not trying to drive traffic to thumbshots.net. Stop editing other people's comments on Talk pages. I've removed the links from my comments, though I think it makes it wholely inconvenient for others who wish to see for themselves. Now knock it off! --Wrathchild ^(talk) 16:44, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute

I have asked for help regarding the disputed edits of this article as well as the vandalism of the talk page.

I'm hopeful that another set of eyes can help us resolve these issues satisfactorily. Wrathchild 14:46, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is clear that Girfa was the first to offer such services. I don't see any way to argue with that. Thumbshots were only established in 2001. No need to argue... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.228.233.237 (talk • contribs) 12:26, January 10, 2006

I also suggest to take out all links to both girafa and thumbshots to resole the spam.

JohnnyB 16:02, 10 January 2006 (UTC) (Comment actually by User:84.228.233.237)

"Clear"? No, it doesn't appear to be so. We're still looking for verifiable sources that that is the case. Wrathchild (talk) 17:40, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes, it is CLEAR - come on you are from thumbshots. Jerome--

And meanwhile you let thumbshot to spam Wikipedia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.253.58.134 (talk • contribs) 12:54, January 16, 2006

You should resolve the issue and be truthful! Isn't that what Wikipedia is all about? Wrathchild, Peyna are you from thunbshot? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.64.88.166 (talk • contribs) 16:49, January 13, 2006

I have no association with any of these websites. In fact, I would highly recommend anyone against editing articles which you have a close relation or strong opinion about, since you are very likely to be biased, no matter how hard you try to be neutral in your writing. Peyna 23:06, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nor I. The only reason I'm even aware of Thumbshots is because I am a dmoz editor. --Wrathchild ^(talk) 23:35, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the link to thumbshots.org on the grounds that it is an unnecessary commercial link. We don't need a link to thumbshots.org, or even a mention of them, to fully understand what thumbshots are. Peyna 01:31, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please review Wikipedia:External_links for some guidelines on when we should and shouldn't use external links in articles. Peyna 01:39, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you are not, so update the reality, start a google search and follow the links above, Girafa are the first to offer such service - it is clearly not debatable !!! Where are you all real editors of Wiki??? Get real!!! Jerome-- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.253.58.134 (talk • contribs) 12:54, January 16, 2006

Yes they are - it is clear, you are right!! Jerome-- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.253.58.134 (talk • contribs) 12:54, January 16, 2006

Putting an end to this

Sun Microsystems filed a patent for "visual bookmarks" which are basically bookmarks using thumbshots within a web browser, on April 5, 1996. Three years before Girafa.com ever existed. Therefore, we know for a fact that Sun was using thumbshots before Girafa. Sun's patent is 5,963,964 (filed April 5, 1996; issued October 5, 1999); Girafa.com's patent is 6,864,904 (filed November 8, 2000; issued March 8, 2005), and even recognizes the Sun patent as prior art. Therefore, Girafa.com cannot claim to be the first to use or make thumbshots. Peyna 20:41, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I added some general info regarding the Sun patent. It is at least the earliest instance of a practical application of thumbshots I have so far been able to find. If anyone can find anything earlier, feel free to update. Peyna 02:43, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should be looking at evidence of thumshots and not visual bookmarks.

These are visual bookmarks. Girafa.com is a more relevant source for actual thumbshots and for this conversation. And I think this is enough evidence: [4] [5] Jerome-- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.253.58.134 (talk • contribs) 11:36, January 17, 2006

First, I have already addressed the information presented in the links you provide as evidence above. Secondly, visual bookmarks, and search engines are two different applications of thumbshots. A thumbshot is a thumbshot regardless of how it is used. This article is about thumbshots, not search engines using thumbshots. Girafa.com may or may not be the first to tie thumbshots into a search engine; but it is irrelevant, as they were definitely not the first to use thumbshots at all. Therefore, it is not necessary to include the information about Girafa, because it is a very subsidiary issue to what thumbshots are, and mentioning it is not required to understand or fully understand what they are and how they are used. For example, the article on footballs does not provide information on manufacturers of footballs, but talks about what a football is and how it is used. It might mention certain sports leagues, but we don't put a link to the Indianapolis Colts and their unique use of footballs.

Visual bookmarks are way to use thumbshots. Sun was doing that before Girafa.com ever existed. Girafa took that technology and applied it to search engines. The thumbshot aspect of both of them are nearly identical. The article points out that thumbshots are used in different applications, including search engines. There is no need or reason to provide a link to a commercial website that makes use of one of the many possible applications, especially since we have no proof that they were the first to come up with the idea of thumbshots (which they weren't). Also, even if they were the first to apply thumbshots to search engines, in my opinion that is not notable enough to warrant inclusion in an article on thumbshots. We can talk about how search engines use thumbshots, whether they generate them on the fly or use an indexing model, etc. We have no need to provide a link to a commercial site that does that. Peyna 17:50, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How is "thumbnail" different?

How is "thumbshot" different from "thumbnail"? Does it have to do witht eh navigational element? They're both used for navigation via preview. 198.49.180.40 00:59, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A thumbshot is simply a thumbnail of a screenshot, usually of a website. They're not really different, but I think most people think of a thumbnail as being a smaller version of an image file. A website isn't an image file, unless you take a screen shot. Thus the different name. Others may have differing points of view, but that's how I see it. —Wrathchild ^(talk) 01:51, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

भाई का भूत 114.31.172.87 (talk) 03:19, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Status

Elite motion thumble editing 2402:8100:27A0:DFF0:0:3D:7F56:2201 (talk) 16:46, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]