Talk:Zooomr

This article was nominated for deletion on 15 March 2015 (UTC). The result of the discussion was rewrite.

This article was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:

Keep, June 29, 2007, see discussion.
No consensus (keep by default), June 5, 2006, see discussion.

People Tags

People Tags were part of Zooomr before August 22. So removing that too.--71.163.64.48 14:00, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Privacy Features

Zooomr also does not yet have the full privacy features of Flickr, which would enable a user to make private photos viewable only to friends or family.

Um Yes it does. I'm removing this line.--71.163.67.245 14:54, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how it has. They don't even delete your pictures when you delete them. --till (talk) 14:32, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't we have a section on how much Zooomr allows you to upload and how much paid users get ?

--141.156.137.80 18:43, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is irrelevent now - everybody gets unlimited space

Zooomr features are "exact copies" of flickr

Wha, wha, wha? This is just marketing copy, obviously written by the staff of the company in question. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.145.49.15 (talk • contribs) Jul 29 19:11 (UTC)

As a side note, 216.145.49.15 resolves to snv-global1.corp.yahoo.com. --Matt 19:54, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Matt - my mistake. I thought Wikipedia was aiming for accuracy, not reverting based on who a contributors employer is. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.145.49.15 (talk • contribs) 22:41, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

It's hard to believe you don't have a bias. "many features, page designs and particular implementations being exact copies." Implementations being exact copies implies, to me, that you copy code. I highly doubt that happened, and that needs to be cited. Features? Photo sites have similar features. It happens. Page designs? The two have photos on the screen, and you can scroll them. They honestly don't seem similar to me in much other than being a photo site. --Matt 22:51, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"The two have photos on the screen, and you can scroll them. They honestly don't seem similar to me in much other than being a photo site" -- there are many pages where the layout is an exact duplicate. That might be merely a coincidence ... if there was any other site on the net that did the same thing. The name? The terms of service used to be an copy, the "learn more" featured cut and paste code (this has since been changed), several bits of javascript were copied (ditto), the image sizes, the url structures, the upload limits, the front page, the 'all sizes' with magnifying glass icon. This is maybe a less faithful ripoff than the chinese Babaian site @ http://www.bababian.com/ but it is a ripoff nonetheless. If they really "don't seem similar" to you, down to the differently colored "r" ...

In any case, I'll let Wikipedia run it's course here and won't revert back, but there are few hundred people who agree with me and I haven't ever heard anyone say "they aren't similar". E.g., http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=%22ripoff+of+flickr%22 or http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=%22rip+off+of+flickr%22 or http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=%22copy+of+flickr%22+zooomr —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.145.49.15 (talk • contribs) July 30 1:36 (UTC)

So, you would presumably argue that Google is a "rip-off" of Yahoo, down to the use of the double "o"? Or is it just that there is demand for web applications such as this and that drives innovation, resulting in the those originally in the market place being left behind. Zooomr is by far more feature-rich than Flickr, in the same way that Google have move far beyond Yahoo in terms of search. Personnally I use both Flickr & Zooomr as well as both Google & Yahoo - the only reason not to must be personal financial interest. Jonobass 11:08, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone who cant see that Zoomr has copied flickrs layout is a fool, a moron, an idiot, whatever you prefer to call them. It was started by a previous flickr user, it has alot of the functionality of flickr. Im impressed they were able to get that far without being sued. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.242.170.179 (talk) 07:37, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge discussion

Support merge. Tate is not notable independent of Zooomer. AKRadecki^Speaketh 22:21, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I merged the article. There was an AfD for Zoomr, without clear consensus for Zoomr, but clearly the consensus was Kristopher Tate did not need an article. —Gaff ^ταλκ 22:26, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Writing HTML at Age 4?

Given that this would place the event at 1992, and reading the history of HTML elsewhere, this is extremely remarkable if at all true. Why a four-year old would be motivated to work with something at such a stage of development is surprising! Certainly does need a 'citation'!

Criticism section

I removed the criticism section earlier as it's not verifiable or supported. I'd like to address each sentence one by one.

After the release of Zooomr Mark III, many bugs still exist through out the website.

Most websites have bugs. Uncited, not neutral.

I think this refers to a fact that a) features disappeared and b) features still did not work. Those "facts" are even acknowledge on the Zooomr blog (they had to focus on other development because of their Japanese investors). See here: http://blog.zooomr.com/2008/01/03/in-reply/ --till (talk) 14:38, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Until now, less than 10% of the bugs are fixed although new features are implemented.

10% by whose count? This number seems pulled from thin air. Most programs have known bugs and still implement new features. Definitely biased and non neutral. Uncited.

http://zooomr.wiki.zoho.com/Bugs.html --till (talk) 14:38, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Many users are agitated with the slow development and started to delete their photos from Zooomr.

Needs citation, straw man argument. Smacks of original research.

Many people claimed so (on their blogs, etc.), e.g. http://www.comeacross.info/2007/09/18/taking-a-break-from-zooomr/ --till (talk) 14:38, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some users are even more angry for the charging(PRO-features) of 'Social Stream' which supposingly the 'Recent Activity' which was free in Mark II.

Needs citation, straw man argument. Supposingly isn't a word.

Without citation, without cleanup, this section does not belong. This needs to be written neutrally, sourced, and without straw man arguments. --Matt 03:08, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Ads...The Ads..oh dear god, the ads...

article read like a company brochure. removed the selective comparisons to big successful sites, removed 'unique features' and the like. terrible this even remained so long. i'm keeping an eye on it. Jw2034 (talk) 23:00, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not notable

Can someone please explain how a site ranked 800,000+ in Alexa and with only 2 sources is on wikipedia? This article: http://en.wikipedia.org/Yuniti

Was deleted despite being in the top 200,000 site in Alexa and having 5+ sources (talk) 13:38, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies - i looked up 'zoomr' in alexa (2 o's instead of 3), and was thus looking at the wrong site. Despite this article being a blatant advertisement (far more than the aforementioned yuniti article), it does have a high rank on alexa, so I retract my previous comments. 65.93.41.212 (talk) 16:45, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]