Talk:Gaydar (website)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article was nominated for deletion on July 20, 2006. The result of the discussion was keep.

Contents 1 Original Research 2 Remove Photo? 3 Remove one paragraph? 4 controversy section 5 Err...? 6 unreferenced assertions 7 Childish Aside 8 recently inserted external link 9 History of the site ?

[edit] Original Research

Even after people remove it, someone keeps reinserting his original research about how gaydar has "made courtship more text-based" or whatever. I don't think very much from that paragraph should be included, but at the very, very least it should have a citation. Aroundthewayboy 19:47, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

It's common sense, not original research. Tony 00:48, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Then it shouldn't be hard to cite a source. ;) Aroundthewayboy 20:14, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Remove Photo?

Do you guys mind if I remove the photo ('An example of a main photo on Gaydar'). It doesn't provide any information and Wikipedia is an encyclopedia after all... Splette 21:34, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Please sign ... I think the photo does provide useful information about the kind of photos that appear on G profiles. Tony 05:56, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Was thinking the same thing Splette, Take a look round gaydar and if most people had picture's like that i'd be far happier... Given the variety both of the men and the types of photo's on gaydar I'd question if the picture demonstrates anything. - Tom C - March 9th 2006

I think the photo does give something of the flavour of the site. Tony 12:14, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Tony, the photo gives an impression of the site. --Oldak Quill 16:37, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I think the photo should be removed. If you look at other articles about other adult websites, most don't have pictures sampling the content. The ones that do have pictures (like Bang Bus, and JenniCam) simply have face shots of relevant people to the site. I think the text in the Gaydar article provides sufficient context for what the website is about, and if that gets a reader interested then they can visit the site.CharacterZero 05:54, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Those two sites appear to be reality porn, and are therefore quite different from Gaydar. Even if they were comparable, why would they provide some kind of standard for this article? (That would imply that all articles should be the same or similar.) Exactly why is the photo here undesirable? Tony 06:24, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Does the photo really provide a fair representation of a main photo on Gaydar? I have just done a straw pole on the UK and Aussie sites and of the 50 photosI counted, 44 were standard "passport type" photos or otherwise fully clothed. It misrepresents the site, and I think it should go Marknp 11:19, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Marknp, can you find an image to replace the current one? Perhaps a png of a mock-up profile page? Tony 12:58, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

The current photo should be removed and replaced with one of the ones that appears on the front page of the site. It's not right to have someone's personal photo appearing here without their permission.Triangle e 00:28, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Can you organise a pic of the home page, then? Tony 04:31, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Should it be one of the pictures from the home page (i.e. this), or a picture of the home page (i.e. this)? Or perhaps simply a logo?? Sweetie Petie 14:34, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Is the new pic any better than the old one??? Tony 03:38, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, it's better looking ;) Sweetie Petie 09:30, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Has the subject given his permission? Tony 11:20, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I have and do give my permission. Apologies if this appears terribly narcissistic, however I felt the other photo wasn't really indicative of the kind of main photos that appear in the listings, and it wouldn't have been appropriate to use a random photo; thus me! Trefusismadding 14:38, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

So ... um ... you won't mind when the article is featured on WP's homepage and your pic is flashed around the world ... Tony 15:00, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't think we need any examples of a main photo on Gaydar though, do we? Sweetie Petie 16:11, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Why not? Tony 16:23, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Good question. I'll get back to you. Sweetie Petie 17:25, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I like that guy's photo as the main photo. It's very Gaydar. Aroundthewayboy 19:49, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, it might be gaydar-style and I definitely like it more than the old one but the caption is simply wrong. It is NOT an example of a main picture shown on the website: This photo has never been on the main page - or am I wrong? It is only made in the same style. This makes me wonder (again) why we have the photo there in the first place. Sorry, but this is not encyclopedic at all.... --Splette ^Talk 16:14, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

So, Splette, can you organise a screen-shot of the home page to replace this pic? Tony 00:49, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Remove one paragraph?

Does anyone mind if I remove the paragraph about 'disdain'. I'm unsure about a number of its assumptions, such as (1) the emphasis on couples, (2) that non-sexual content in the chatrooms reduces the 'sex-obsessed image', (3) that there's something inherently undesirable about being sex obsessed or seeking casual sex.

It raises lots of thorny issues.

Tony 05:59, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

First and foremost, personally I don't have a problem with this paragraph in question being removed. However, I do think it makes for a balanced article. Gaydar is often seen that it is not worthy of interest due to the reasons stated yet I agree with your arguments. Hmmm, that makes my contribution rather useless, doesn't it?

R.carroll 21:35, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] controversy section

This had major, major NPOV issues that I tried to address by removing original research and adding a short paragraph about controversies surrounding the site. I'm not even a particular critic of the site, but Wikipedia articles need to be BALANCED and encyclopedic. This article read as if the Gaydar marketing department had written it. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a marketing tool or platform for original research.

Here are the two bits of original research I removed that need citations if they are to be reinserted:

Considered as a whole, the site contains a wealth of data about the gay world that is freely accessible to members, but which does not yet appear to have been used for research purposes.

In doing so, Gaydar appears to promote the use of written text over body language and oral communication in the initial stages of the courtship process. It allows users to display and receive more detailed and intimate information in many personal areas than is possible in live venues, with a significantly lower level of personal risk to users.

I found the CDC study here, among other places: [1] 64.131.157.221 09:17, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

There are controversies/criticisms such as

• Nude pictures (rated as explicit sexual content) cannot be viewed unless you're paying for membership, even though you must be 18+ to join gaydar. As a result, pictures uploaded must be approved by gaydar before being made visible to non-members.
• Non-paying members face many site restrictions, such as a limited number of messages you can send (10 I believe), cannot view messages sent in the past 48 hours, number of profiles you can view, number of chat rooms you can access at one time, and so on.
• The cliquey nature of the gay community in the chatrooms often ignores anyone who is either non-scene, straight-acting, bisexual or bi-curious.

==

First of all, always sign your posts with tildas.

Second, everything you're saying is original research and is not encyclopedic.

Aroundthewayboy 17:35, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

"Gaydar appears to offer significantly more functionality at a cheaper price than its heterosexual equivalents. " - What is this doing in criticisms? Rsynnott 21:36, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Err...?

Do we really need "gaydar" under EVERY ccTLD? I can see one and maybe a note on their use of other ccTLDs, but the current list is a littel suspiscious. 68.39.174.238 08:51, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I totally agree, the link to the UK site should be enough --Splette 19:07, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Gaydar is sort of a cultural thing in the gayworld, a bit like (I dunno, some famous straight site, playboy.com?). Each region is important to the thousands of people that live in those regions. To remove any regions from this chain would be insulting. It only takes a click to confirm which ones are real anyway, so they should stay

Sorry, but I strongly disagree. This has nothing to do with discrimination or shutting people out. Do you think it is insulting people from all over the world that in the google search article there is only a link to google.com and not google,de google.it google.co.uk google.it... you get the idea. Everyone who clicks on gaydar can easily choose the his languega by clicking on one of the flags on the left. this is not our job to do. The many links here for every language version are simply redundant. --Splette ^Talk 09:47, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, I would be curious to see which and how many domain names Google corporation have actually JayKeaton 15:54, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree that we do not need to link to all of gaydars TLDs... especially since all urls leads to the very same page with the very same information (except for the different url in the gaydar logo). Well, I act now... --DrMurx 17:48, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

totally agreed. good initiative. Aroundthewayboy 19:48, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] unreferenced assertions

The following sentence in the article appears to lack supporting references. To remain, I think that Gaydar would have to be shown to do all of these things more than other modes of courtship.

"Other critics allege that it facilitates sex addiction, underage sex, barebacking (anal intercourse without a condom), and drug use."

Can someone come up with an argument as to why this sentence should be retained?

Tony 13:12, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I read an article about Gaydar in Gay City News recently where critics were making these very claims... Aroundthewayboy 20:16, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

here's a good article about it; [2]

According to the 2002 Gay Men's Survey of London Gyms, "using the internet to seek sexual partners was associated with high-risk sexual behaviour among HIV positive and HIV negative men." That means that the researchers found a significant association between using the internet and having unprotected anal sex with partners who were not of the same HIV status.

"What we do know is that the few studies done have shown this association between seeking sex on the internet and high risk behaviour. That raises all sorts of questions to which currently we don't have answers," says Professor Jonathan Elford at City University's Institute of Health Sciences, the leading UK researcher into gay men and the use of the internet for sex.

or here's another critic: [3]

Gaydar, the UK's leading gay online hook-up resource, has become a notorious meeting place for crystal users and addicts looking to indulge in "chem sex".

Clueless members are increasingly finding themselves introduced to the drug online, like Nick: "This hustler's profile read 'I have tons of crystal - let's fuck all night!' He's getting people hooked on his so-called 'wonder drug', and the sex he engages in is 100% unsafe. When I tried raising the alarm, neither Gaydar nor Boyz magazine, where he also advertises, wanted to know."

Aroundthewayboy 20:36, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Childish Aside

Nice pics m8 lol (sorry, I just couldn't resist) Jacob 13:45, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] recently inserted external link

Thingbox is a stub of an article. Is it worthy of inclusion here? Tony 14:17, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I've been wondering the same. We don't have to link to every single other service of that kind. The Category link to 'online dating' should be enough --Splette ^Talk 15:07, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] History of the site ?

Does anybody have any history about the site

• when was it setup
• who set it up
• has it's ownership changed
• how has it grown over the years - uniformly, or not
• how profitable is it

btw, this is my first discussion edit, so apologies in advance if i've screwed it up ! Reluctantregistrant 13:13, 31 October 2006 (UTC)