User talk:Carl Sarnstrand

welcome to wikipedia. Please sign your comments on Talk Pages --Ceas webmaster 15:53, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, i will do that. --Carl Sarnstrand 10:10, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

POV

Mr. Sarnstrand, welcome to Wikipedia. We are all glad that you are here to make sure your company's website is not maligned, in fact I use this account for the same purposed for the Western Michigan University college of engineering and applied sciences (my recreational account is user:Rebent). However one thing Wikipedia does not like, and which I myself try to avoid, is companies and individuals who edit their own wikipedia article to make themselves look better.

This type of contributing is called "Point of View": according to your personal point of view, Picsearch is the end-all be-all excellent search engine. However, this does not reflect the views of the encyclopedic community at all. Take, for example, the article on Google. This article is fairly neutral point of view in that what is discussed in the article is history, products, trivia, standards, cultural impact, etc. All it does is state what these things are, and it doesn't say if they're good or bad or anything. The Picsearch article, on the other hand, reads like an advertisement. All it is is a list of reasons why Picsearch is the best ever. While I understand why you want it to say what it does, it is simply not the way Wikipedia works.

So, I am going to add a Wikipedia:Request_for_comments to this page. That way, we can get more information and community involvement on this page. --Ceas webmaster 14:28, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Specify your problems

Adding "Request for comments" sounds like a good idea. I have only contributed the paragraph about Picsearch environmental policy and I have also added a paragraph about our competitors. I do not see this as advertisment or a biased statement. I have added sources from International Herald Tribune, The Times and AltSearchEngine. if you compare the article about Google and Picsearch I believe it is clear that their are no major differences between them, except that Google has included their corporate slogans in the first paragraph.

I would like know exactly what you think looks like an advertisement and suggest refrasing of these sentences. --Carl Sarnstrand 09:45, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CS: I have made a list on talk:Picsearch about issues I have. Please don't misunderstand, I don't hate picsearch and I do think environmentally friendly companies are great, it's just that to me it looks like an advertisement and Non-nutral and questionably accurate and so I tagged it as such and until either consensus is reached or standards are met I will keep the tags there. --Ceas webmaster 16:50, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Using Wikipedia

Hay carl I see you are doing some formatting on picsearch. It looks like it's coming together better! Keep up the good work. One comment I might make, tho, is that you use the "show preview" function while working on the page; that way you can lump all your edits into one big one, when you know you've got it perfect --Ceas webmaster 13:23, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Learning. The first version of the rewritten article is now done.--Carl Sarnstrand 15:02, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

sounds good, but... --Ceas webmaster 16:37, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

re: Picsearch

Hi, I took a look at the article. Its headed in the right direction but it still isn't time to take the tags off. The article still has constructs that look like it is from PR material. Take for example the second paragraph of the lead: "Other Picsearch customers inclyude regional search portals in Germany[5], Turkey[6][7], Russia, the Arabic speaking world[8], the Czech Republic[9], in Scandinavia[10][11] and many other regions. Founded in 2000, Picsearch has continued to grow; that growth has included portals, search engines, media companies, telecoms, e-commerce[12], sport websites, yellow pages and communities[13]" It definitely sounds like you are charting the growth in order in a promotional tone. Instead you can state the information as in "Other search engines, portals, media companies and others which provide image search services, in various countries, use the Picsearch index/service as well" and merge it into the first paragraph. This prevents unnecessary stress on the market penetration (which is one of the main things that make something promotional). Two or three references can be put after the entire sentence that links to a page which shows some examples (preferably third party site; in their absence first party will do). Thrid party sites are preferred as references for statistics; first party ones are preferred for technical information. Remove the links to the site from the article body and put them in the External links section (include the main site, not the country-specific site. They can be reached from the main site, isnt it?).

Remove the genesis information from the lead. Create a History section which includes the information. "The founders conceived the idea because they themselves wanted to be able to find images on the web and thought they could improve upon the services available at that time. Their goal was to improve relevancy, create a larger index, and to introduce family-friendly and spam filtering" sounds editorialish. Instead, just say the "goal was to...". The information that was cut out from the lead (about which countries are using the services) can be presented here as a timeline but do not include more than four or five. That would tilt it to a promotional edge.

I havent scrutinized the rest of the article. Hope you can do it yourself. But it is better that you limit your involvement with the article to as little as you can. Because you have a conflict of interest with the subject of the article, even though you did not want to, non-neutral presentation might creep in. The material is not under scrutiny, it is definitely encyclopedic. But the presentation at some places is not.

Anyways, you can continue till the article has reached a mature enough stage with all the aspects covered and tags removed. Then, if you want, you might retire. To add any information, you can bring it up at the talk page, and volunteers here will present it properly. Regards, --soum ^talk 07:57, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for many good ideas! I have tried to do as much as possible.

The list of countries was not chosen randomly. The German market requires special capabilities to follow special legislation. The users in Muslim Turkey and the Arabic language world have very strict requirements for family-friendliness.
Picsearch differs from its competitors by offering services that are more easily adjustable. Picsearch search service was the first to be used in price comparison sites and Picsearch interests are not vested in the dominance of the search portal. I have rewritten the sentence to be less promotional.
Timeline doesn't work. Maybe I can find some other feature to display th information.

I understand the problem of COI and will try to avoid it. I added a paragraph about censorship, that can be extended by other users. I will try to scrutinize the rest of the text as well. But I think I have done most of what is of obvious nature.

--Carl Sarnstrand 23:03, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Picsearch article updated...

Picsearch article updated... Please go through Mugunth 08:46, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Picsearch image search boob.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Picsearch image search boob.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media 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. —Angr 18:13, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free rationale for File:Picsearch image search fron.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Picsearch image search fron.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:27, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]