Talk:Netflix/Archive2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Hacking Netflix Link

Why I believe hackingnetflix link should not be in the links sections:

  • It is a blog. External links should provide factual and referenced information.
  • It is not solely dedicated to the netflix discussion. It discusses an broad range of issues dealing with netflix, blockbuster, movies & hd dvd.
  • The content of the webpage does not contribute any significant new information for the reader. Most of the information can be found on Wikipedia or the offical netflix website. E.g. Netflix has 60,000 titles & has HDVDs now.
  • Shameless self promotion by the user:netflixhacking to promote his website and gain ad revenue from the ads on his website.
I disagree. Not only was the blog listed in the same article as the so-called "throttling" discussion, but it's arguably one of the larger Netflix sites to exist out there. It'd likely reach WP:WEB if we made an article for it, so I think it should stick around. For the record, it does link to plenty of references to the issues it discusses, deals primarily with Netflix, and as for the self-promotion charge, if I had noticed it wasn't there to begin with, I would have added it myself. I won't add it back just yet, but the link should absolutely stay. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 01:11, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

You are correct that the blog does list some references in it's articles. But let's take a look at its article headlines:

  • Netflix Hires Movie Industry Vets (Good story)
  • HD DVD Players Shipping (Not netflix related)
  • New Releases for April 18th, 2006 (Not netflix related)
  • New AJAX-Based Add to Queue Feature (Netflix darkens screen during queuing. Totally frivolous)
  • Netflix Service is 8 Years Old (Redundant, information is stated on wikipedia on when netflix is founded)
  • Netflix Now Has 60,000 Titles (Redundant, information is on netflix offical website)
  • TiVo Wins Patent Suit (not netflix related)
  • Netflix Exclusive "Coal Queens" (Decent story. netflix signing an exclusive deal for a film. But info can also be found on netflix official website)
  • Tribeca Film Festival & Mission Impossible III Premier (Not netflix related)
  • Netflix Plugin for Beyond Media (Good story, plugin for beyond media)
  • A Fool Explains Why He's Still Unkind to Blockbuster (irrelavant)
  • Netflix HD DVD Alert E-mail (Redundant, wikipedia & official site states such information)
  • Movie Gallery To Cut 300 Jobs (Not netflix related)
  • Blockbuster Will Add HD DVD Titles April 18th (Not netflix related)
  • Different Blockbuster Coupons For Different Stores (not netflix related) (Not netflix related)

Out of the 15 headlines, 3 are decent/good netflix stories. 4 headlines state frivolous information or information that already exists on wikipedia or the official website. 8, or over half are totally not related to netflix. The articles have nothing to do with throttling [from User:Efreeti].

Okay, great, so HN is a good resource for Netflix news that people may not readily find in other areas. This is a reason to remove the link why? I don't see redundancy as a rationale, otherwise we may as well only quote the AP stories that don't get spread to other news outlets, since, you know, it's redundant. Regardless, if redundancy is your only issue, then that means that you have no qualms with my other refutations, so I'm still not convinced it should go away. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 11:33, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

(Efreeti - don't forget to Wikipedia:Sign_your_posts_on_talk_pages). I'm not sure why the Hacking Netflix link would be so objectionable. Certainly a requirement that any site linked to a Wikipedia article must contain only (or a majority of) information that doesn't appear in the article, or at the subject's website, seems overly drastic. Some of your "not netflix related" indications seem overly narrow - a site interested in Netflix and what affects it is going to be interested in a major competitor or what it is replacing (Blockbuster, Movie Gallery). As a Canadian interested in Netflix but not eligible to join, information on how a Netflix account actually works (queue story) is valuable, not frivolous.

Consider it from the other end - what are the best sources of further or ongoing information for the article's reader. The HNF blog seems to be a potential candidate - it consolidates various news and information articles, is well presented and formatted, not grinding any axes too heavily, etc. I don't think a site of this sort is automatically disqualified as a reference link, and in the case of HNF it is a top listing when Googling "Netflix", was mentioned in an Economist article this year, etc. I'd likely add it back myself. [full disclosure - I recently sent a brief email to the HNF site about the LoveFilm/Video Island merger, and was thanked in the resulting entry]. David Oberst 03:59, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I did not list the site when it was added to the Wikipedia (no shameless self-promotion, sorry!), but was disappointed when the link was removed. I assumed it was done out of spite, possibly by somone with a grudge against me. It's an honor to be listed on the Wikipedia, and I think that closer examination of the 1,462 stories I've posted in 2.5 years will help you reconsider. I hope I've earned that link. I hated adding it back, but I felt that the removal wasn't justified. I will not make any further attempts to add it back.
  • My stories are researched and many are verified by Netflix PR. I have yet to print a retraction or apology. Netflix has defended my site on TV (MSNBC: On the Money in December). I also link to sources. Your bias against bloggers is unfair.
  • I have been the exclusive source of stories like the Netflix Player: Glitch Exposes "Netflix Player" (which was verified by Netflix in a Red Herring story).
  • I've written a number of stories about throttling, and was linked to in the same AP Wire story as Manuel's site (note that they did not link to his site). Comments on the Netflix Throttling Story. My response to the story has more than 400 comments by Netflix customers. You cannot comment or respond to stories on Manuel's site. Virtually anyone can comment -- I have deleted only a couple out of 19,498.
  • Manuel's site is a mix of information about Netflix, Blockbuster, and Greencine, and stories about Anime. I have a similar mix of stories about Netflix and competitors, and yet his site is not contested. You worry about accuracy, but Manuel's site is riddled with false statements and he has refused to print corrections. Examples: Netflix is a Delaware corp, not a foreign company. He has suggested that Netflix is owned by terrorists because of a minority ownership by a "foreign parent" (Barclay's Bank of England). He's even suggested that Netflix CEO Reed Hastings would kill people [1]. Thankfully, his site is not a blog. ;-)
  • Many of my stories are sent in by Netflix readers. I have posted hundreds of questions about Netflix and customer service issues.
  • Netflix just added support for HD DVD, and will be adding support for Blu-ray soon. Netflix customers are interested in this topic and I get a lot of e-mail about HD DVD vs. Blu-ray.
  • Netflix and TiVo have publicly announced a partnership, and I covered the TiVo story because of the relationship and the recent patent lawsuit against Blockbuster. I think the story is very relevant.
  • I have experimented with stories about film festivals and other movie-related topics, but the primary focus is DVD-by-mail.
  • Blockbuster is a highly relevant topic. They are Netflix's biggest competitor and many of my readers are curious about how the services compare (some even subscribe to both).
  • The new releases are Netflix-specific (and include a link to the movie page on Netflix). I've tried to stop posting this list, but I get numerous complaints. Netflix does not promote the new releases or archive the list. I post the list on Monday mornings and it generates the most pageviews -- obviously popular with Netflix subscribers.
  • HackingNetflix has had more than 500,000 unique visitors so far in 2006 and is the 2nd link in Google for the term Netflix. I'm not doing any SEO -- this is based on the quality of the stories (even if you think some are irrelevant).
  • I do have ads, but that's not a reason to delete a site (there are links on the Netflix Wikipedia page to Wired, the Economist, and USA Today and they all have ads). Even Manuel has recently added advertising.
HackingNetflix is not a perfect site, but I hope that it has earned a link in the Wikipedia. Hacking Netflix

You probably have devoted a lot of time maintaining your website and enjoy lots of input from netflix users. However, wikipedia is not a search engine index. It would be unfair let you list your amateur blog and not let the other top 10 blogs do so. There are also numerous professional websites that covers noteworthy netflix related news, like CNET News (type netflix into their search box). When such professionally website who maintain fit for print articles don't get listed, neither should amateur news sites.

Taking a look at other links on the netflix page Netflix.com <-- official site Netflix Class Action Lawsuit (2005) <-- official site Interview with Reed Hastings, Netflix Founder <-- interview with important company personnel Netflix Corporate Fact Sheet <--factual

Coverage of 'throttling' An Analysis of Netflix's DVD Allocation System (2003) <--detailed fairly factual analysis of throttling 'Throttling' angers Netflix heavy renters <--Major news network link (ABC) My Opinion of Netflix - Manuel Villanueva was interviewed by the AP for their story above about Netflix, although Villanueva holds a more expanded view on what "throttling" entails. <--Noteworthy person's website that has been interviewed by ABC about throttling. As you can see all links are either offical, contain detailed factual information not found on website, or about noteworthy person connected to the company. Popular blogs & amateur sites about netflix in general just doesn't belong to an encyclopedia's links section. Efreeti —The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:Efreeti (talk • contribs) 10:52, 18 April 2006.

It's not about fairness, it's about notability and content. Hacking Netflix certainly meets any basic criteria for inclusion here, especially given the blog's mention in various media outlets concerning the "throttling" issue. Much like the opposition to Manuel's blog went away following the ABC news story (actually an AP story, for accuracy's sake), the opposition to the Hacking Netflix blog should also disappear. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 19:13, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Unlike the "fairness algorithm" link, HNF is notably not a typical opinion blog, and very few of the items are "personal experience" at all. It is instead a useful, targeted compendium, often presenting and linking directly to stories on those "numerous professional websites". As Mike(?) pointed out, there seems to be at least a working relationship with the Netflix PR folks. Also, from the Economist article I mentioned earlier: "Mike Kaltschnee's site, HackingNetflix.com, became a force to be reckoned with for Netflix, a video-rental outfit that delivers to people's homes. When Netflix said it was not interested in Mr Kaltschnee passing on questions from consumers, he posted the exchange online, hurting the firm's reputation among loyal customers. The company now treats him much more respectfully and his site has gained a large following." I'm not sure if you have something specifically against the HNF site; nothing in your contribution history would indicate any extensive experience with Wikipedia conventions in this area (not that I claim any myself). It might be useful to have some more senior members give this an eyeball, but I would expect the link would generally be found appropriate. David Oberst 19:59, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

HackingNetflix was a source and linked in the AP Wire store (I suggest you actually read the story where it describes HN as a forum: [2]). Note that they did not link to Manuel's site for obvious reasons (such as the "kill people" comment about Reed Hastings).
I rarely post my experiences, and if you bothered to read the site for any amount of time, you'd see that I post user questions and problems for discussion [3].
I guess not promoting the press coverage that HackingNetflix has received is hurting my credibility here. A few examples:
NY Times "In addition to viewing blogs as another media channel, it allows us to keep our pulse on the marketplace," said Ken Ross, a vice president of Netflix, the movie rental company based in Los Gatos, Calif. One of the best-known blogs about Netflix, hackingnetflix.com, was started last November by Mike Kaltschnee, who lives in Danbury, Conn."
Appearance on MSNBC's "On The Money" Neil Hunt, PM @ Netflix: "He's extremely well-informed; in fact, we find that the comments posted on Mike's blog and other similar blogs are extremely useful for us to help keep a pulse on what people are saying and thinking out there. And like any other communications channel that brings in a lot of customer input, there's going to be a lot of good stuff and there's going to be some fringe stuff ... You have to figure out which is which, and which to ignore. But in general we find it a great channel."
BusinessWeek "When a fan blog called Hacking Netflix asked the company for info and interviews last year, Netflix turned it down. How could they make time for all the bloggers? Predictably, the blogger, Mike Kaltschnee, aired the exchange, and Netflix faced a storm of public criticism. Now Netflix feeds info to Kaltschnee, and he passes along what he's hearing from the fans. Sounds like he's half journalist, half consultant -- though he insists Netflix doesn't pay him."
I could go on (there are dozens), but instead I'd like to focus on the fact that since I use blogging software instead of printing and selling a vertical market newsletter, you can't list the site? I do not run a "fan" site -- it's a news and information site about Netflix that just happens to be hosted on a blog.
I'm not arguing to re-list my site, I just don't feel that you've justified removing it when you allow extremely biased sites like Manuel's to be listed.
You also list "An Analysis of Netflix's DVD Allocation Strategy." This is a 3 year-old report (with minor updates). The report is interesting, but there is a lot more information about Netflix (not posted on this entry in the Wikipedia), in the 1,492+ stories on HackingNetflix.com.
I think a huge weakness of the Wikipedia is anonymity, and I now question your identity based on your bias against HackingNetflix when compared with Manuel's site. So, who are you? Hacking Netflix

I'm not really sure what part of WP:WEB is under contention here? Hacking Netflix undeniably complies. -R

In reply to "R", hackingnetflix does not meet any of the WP:WEB criterias. This is why it does not have a webpage on Wikipedia. The section of the discussion focuses on the merit of listing hackingnetflix under the netflix section.

In response to user:Hackingnetflix: I do not have a personal issue with you or your website. I merely believe the hackingnetflix should not be listed under links because of the reasons I stated above. There is no need to get angry. As to why Manuel Villanueva's link is listed:

  • Associated Press has interviewed him in regards to his experience with Netflix's throttling. The AP article "'Throttling' angers Netflix renters" directly mentions him in relation to Netflix. AP stories are widely circulated and this makes Manuel noteworthy. Since the AP story is about his experiences with netflix, and his website details his experiences with netflix, this makes his website noteworthy.

About articles referring to your website: The first two links you provided links to stories about blogging, not netflix. eg. "Brand Blogs Capture the Attention of Some Companies". "BusinessWeek: Small Business Blogging Is Here!" I do not dispute the fact that you run a popular blog. I merely contest turning the links section into a post your 10 favorite blog sites section. Google and yahoo does a great job of indexing the most popular/favorite blog sites. Let's leave the indexing to them. Efreeti

I will let others decide the fate of the site, as I believe that it was a mistake to relist my own site. However, my response is appropriate given your comments about HackingNetflix (I suggest you think about what you write before you post it):
  • "Shameless self promotion by the user:netflixhacking to promote his website and gain ad revenue from the ads on his website." As I've stated before I had nothing to do with the initial link to HackingNetflix, and only reposted after what I thought was an improper deletion. Your comment was an assumption and inappropriate for a public forum. The traffic from the Wikipedia in minimal, but it is an honor to be listed here.
  • Your comment about blogs is also a problem: "It is a blog. External links should provide factual and referenced information." I do my own research and often confirm stories with Netflix PR (I spent many years as a PR professional). Hacking Netflix
I don't see anything wrong with linking to HackingNetflix.com. Although few blogs are link-worthy, there is no blanket prohibition against linking to useful blogs from Wikipedia. HackingNetflix is probably the most well-known Netflix blog, and its content complements Wikipedia's article. WP:WEB is a guideline for article notability, it has nothing to do with external links. Rhobite 23:07, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Am I missing something? 1 person says the link shouldn't be here, while a bunch of people say the link should be here. Rhetorical question: Doesn't Wikipedia have a guideline in place that says the majority rules? This is ridiculous.
On another note: HackingNetflix is more of a portal then a blog.

--Anthony 02:57, 24 April 2006 (UTC)


[edit] The continuing war

I thought this had been put back, or I would have restored it myself. I had asked Rhobite to swing by here (he is an admin). David Oberst 05:03, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I figured that there's a pretty strong consensus that the link should be here. Ignoring anonymous IPs for the sake of discussion, I have PhaseDMA, myself, Oberst, and Rhobite, along with the creator of Hacking Netflix, as in favor, and only Efreeti opposed. That's a pretty solid sample, and 80% say it should stay with legitimate reasoning behind it. Why is this still an issue? --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 16:06, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

While I hardly feel the link is essential, neither is it obviously improper. My basic test is whether it would be one of the most significant places I would want to be made aware of if I had an ongoing interest in the subject of the article. I certainly think it has a better claim to link space than the 4 year old mini-interview with Reed Hastings, which provides relatively little that isn't in the article. It isn't as if there are a half dozen roughly equivalent sites and we are just choosing one at random or by bias. Perhaps thinking of it as a "blog" is the sticking point - as has been pointed out, the presentation is much more of a news consolidation service - almost all postings link to original sources, are not written from a "personal experience" point of view, etc. Finally, I have a certain amount of hesitation in having even a small consensus overturned by a single contributor, especially on the basis of concepts like "refuted"... :) David Oberst 16:18, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

First of all, whether the links should be there should be decided based on merit. Only hackingnetflix has made any substantial arguments for keep the links. Two other arthurs merely state they believe it needs to be there. The opinions on the talk back isn't an accurate & scientific reflection of people who visit the Netflix article page. You can't conclude there is a census that hackingnetflix link should be there just based on the feedback of 4 writers who chose to include their input on the talk back page.

Oberst argues that hackingnetflix should be there because there are worse links like Netflix CEO interview link. I do not agree the link is bad. It is about an interview with a extremely important person that is in control of Netflix's affairs and directly affiliated with Netflix. Even if the link is bad, the argument to include bad links just because there are worse links is not sound.

I have throughly stated my arguments against including Hackingnetflix link in extensive discussions above. Please provide good arguments to the following points:

  • Why amateur hackingnetflix blog should be listed when professional news sites who provide better coverage are not?
  • Why hackingnetflix blog should be the only blog listed in the links page when other popular netflix blogs are not? Also, why should blogs be listed in links when they aren't normally listed in other corporations links sections (ie Blockbusters).

Until these fundamental issues are resolved or an admin provides guidance, the hackingnetflix link will continue to be removed. Efreeti

I see no need to repeat the great evidence provided by the Hacking Netflix guy just to make it appear that I agree with all of them. I do agree with them. Why should the HackingNetflix blog be listed when "professional news sites who provide better coverage are not?" Like who? Who's missing that you feel should be there? As a secondary situation, only two blogs are listed: Manuel's and HackingNetflix, both of which have recieved considerable media attention. The only other notable Netflix blog I'm aware of is Becky's Fan Blog, and I'm not aware of any media attention toward that blog, thus I don't tihnk it should be included. I still see no legitimate reason to keep it out at this point, given what we know about the nature and media attention. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 17:19, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

If HNF were just a blog I'd be much less likely to support the link. But as I've pointed out, the content isn't what people typically mean when they use the term "blog". A fair number of the entries are used to summarize (and link to) relevant stories from the "professional news sites". The wiki article could hardly be expected to link to AP, CNET, and whoever else just because they have and will run articles on Netflix, but HNF provides a consolidation point where these articles can be discovered. As far as the "admin guidance", User:Rhobite is an admin (which was why I asked him to comment, and he certainly seemed to support the link in principle. II'll see if I can get him to comment further, or find other admins to pitch in. I think this link is a significantly useful resource for readers of the article (and not just one of many similar possible links), but aside from that I'm not sure that continual removal by a single user (although I'm sure with honest convictions) represents "best practices" for Wikipedia. David Oberst 17:59, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I note that the iPod article links to two resources of a similar nature to "Hacking Netflix", iLounge.com and iPod Garage. I have no experience with the latter, but iLounge does seem to be of similar utility to the iPod article as HNF to Netflix, and is in a similar format. I suspect that a mooted deletion of this link on the iPod talk page would generate a much faster and decisive consensus against. David Oberst 19:38, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Whether iLounge is included with iPod page is up to the iPod users. But here is what I notice about iLounge

  • iLounge contain relevant news coverage that is unique to them. i.e. Story about iPod at CES trade show & Apple Expo Paris with photographs on the latest offerings.
  • iLounge is exclusively devoted to itunes & ipod related news stroies. 50% of HNF news stories is not directly related to netflix.
  • iLounge has guides, tutorials and reviews on the iPod. They have about 30 guides on iPod usage.

I just revisited the Hackingnetflix site. The news content has gotten better since April 20th. --Efreeti 20:53, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Re: your comment about "until an admin provides guidance", admins have no special power over article content. My opinion should be judged on its own merits. Acting in my capacity as an ordinary editor, however, I have to agree with Oberst here. HackingNetflix is not an amateur blog, not that there's any blanket prohibition against linking to amateur blogs from articles. I think it's an interesting and useful resource. I've visited the blog before it was mentioned in relation to this article, and I would guess that it's the most well-known blog. I also don't think you're making a valid argument when you say we shouldn't link to Hacking Netflix until we link to several other unnamed sites first. What are these other sites? If they're useful and notable, let's add them. Rhobite 22:13, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

"HackingNetflix is not an amateur blog,". Strange, unless hackingnetflix is run as a business, it is definately categorized as amateur blog. "What are these other sites? If they're useful and notable, let's add them." Type in "netflix news blog" into yahoo search. CNet, a professional IT news site, is the first listed. All of the rest search results are great too, and none of them are ever listed in links section. This is why hackingnetflix shouldn't get special treatment either. Wikipedia's links section isn't a substitue for search engine index.

A note about merit of HNF's news consolidation: other news sites do a better job. Just type netflix into search boxes of professional websites (like cnet). Viola, instant consolidation of all the netflix articles. --Efreeti 00:46, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I guess I assumed you were using the term "amateur" to mean that it is a low quality site. It's true that Hacking Netflix is "amateur" if "amateur" means noncommercial, but of course Wikipedia prefers noncommercial links so that's not much of an argument. In the noncommercial sense of the word, Wikipedia is an amateur site itself. I disagree with your suggestion that we should base our external links on a strict reading of search engine results, and no other factors. Rhobite 01:38, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Lets make something VERY clear. The fact that HackingNetflix is a "amateur blog" (or portal or whatever you want to call it) is one of the very last, if not downright the last point that should be used when trying to decide if the link should be on the article.
As far as the iPod thing goes. It does provide guidance. Just as any other article would provide guidance. There are not diffrent rule books for diffrent types of articles. Trying to argue such is a waste of everyone's time.
Now with that said - I'm a wrestling fan. As a wrestling fan the consensus of the "WikiProject Professional wrestling" is that AT LEAST one "fan" link is acceptable - On the grounds that the link is of high quality (something I should hope we can all agree HackingNetflix can easily claim).
Now lets hit everyone of your points directly.
"* Why amateur hackingnetflix blog should be listed when professional news sites who provide better coverage are not?"
Provide any one site that provides better coverage then a site that provides coverage from other sites and I'll be shocked.
"* Why hackingnetflix blog should be the only blog listed in the links page when other popular netflix blogs are not? Also, why should blogs be listed in links when they aren't normally listed in other corporations links sections (ie Blockbusters)."
That's simple. Because it's the most popular netflix "blog" (most large blogs these days call themselfs CMSs for the record). Now in this case trying to compare apples to oranges is just that. Just because Blockbuster does not have a blog (or any thing of the sort) of a high quality does not mean Netflix doesn't (because clearly it does).
Now... "the hackingnetflix link will continue to be removed." That's a very bold statement. One that if I was you I would take back, because it does not fit with the way Wikipedia operates, and at the extreme end this type of attitude could get you banned from Wikipedia.
Finally PLEASE stop making statements in such a way as to present them as policy or guidlines when clearly they are your own views.--Anthony 04:51, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

For those people who are too lazy to use google and yahoo search engines, here are some sites that are better or just as good as hackingnetflix:

This is not a comprehensive list. There are other good sites out there. Go use search engines to get more. It anyone can provide good arguments why HackingNetflix should be given special treatment when many sites like the above are not listed, then I will stop taking the hackingnetflix link. DO some research. Don't just think your favorite blog is the best and greatest. To be fair, Hackingnetflix is a decent blog. But it is not that great to deserve special treatment. --Efreeti 15:40, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Now your just making me angry. Perhaps you should use Google. You would then see that HackingNetflix holds spots 2 and 3 only behind Netflix (for the record this article comes in a low 6th). Topix doesn't even make the first page, DigitalTrends hardly makes the top 10, News.com doesn't make the first page, while the NetflixFan blog would perhaps be a good link it goes even more against everything your trying to fight for. It takes nerve to tell someone "use a search engine". It takes even more though to say that when it blows up in your face.--Anthony 16:55, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

We are not arguing about the position of Hackingnetflix on search engine listings. Hackingnetflix ranks differently based on search engine and keywords used. We are arguing about the content of HNF with regards to other sites. Visit the other sites listed and compare the content and make a judgment for yourself. --Efreeti 19:13, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

P.s. Your argument that hackingnetflix should be listed based on search engine results is not sound. If the 2nd/3rd google link gets listed, why shouldn't the 2nd/3rd google links be listed from Yahoo, MSN or AOL search engines? Why shouldn't the 4th,5th,6th etc links be included as well? Search results also fluxuates depends on which search term in use. ie. "Netflix", "Netflix News", "Netflix news blog" --Efreeti 19:23, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Guess what? We are done. There is a consensus. The link is going to stay. You are welcome to continue trying to to convince us otherwise, but I highly doubt it's worth your time. A word of advice though. Don't tell people to do something, and then go back telling us not to do it when it comes back with unfavorable results.--Anthony 19:32, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
I don't think it's necessary to say "we are done", but I do agree that there have been sufficient arguments and opinions to support including the Hacking Netflix link. Efreeti, you don't have to agree that this should be linked, but please respect the decision. And as a reminder, please respect the Wikipedia:Three revert rule. This goes for both of you. PhaseDMA, please don't accuse Efreeti of vandalism - it's just a difference of opinion. He isn't vandalizing the article. Rhobite 19:51, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

"I do agree that there have been sufficient arguments and opinions to support including the Hacking Netflix link." I don't think there are any good arguments as to why Hackingnetflix should get exclusive treatment of being linked. I'm requesting mediation. I think an objective 3rd person would help.

That's great, but I'm not intrested in your political games and since mediation requires approval from all involved parties it's not going to happen. Perhaps if you decide to show some respect. Refusing to go with the orginal content until there is approval from all sides is not very respectful. And yes I made a mistake reverting the page back, but that's what everyone else wanted.--Anthony 20:20, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

With due respect what part of refusing to remain civil is not vandalism?--Anthony 19:53, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Incivility and vandalism are both wrong, but that doesn't mean they are the same thing. I wish you'd reconsider mediation - I don't see any reason for you to refuse it outright. Efreeti seems like a reasonable person to me, you should give it a try. Rhobite 20:39, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Linking in general

Please do not list personal blog of one individual netflix experience in the links section. There are many people who maintain netflix experience blogs and publishes them on the internet. It would be totally unfair to list one individual's blog and not list others. If all the blogs got listed, the links section lose its usefulness. The enclopedia links section is not suppose to be a search engine index. Please let people use Google for that. Netflix Fairness Algorithm - A user covering his experience with the Fairness Algorithm has been removed for this reason. Efreeti

[edit] Mediation Tag

I removed the tag. Only because it seems to be causing some very odd formating making it very hard to read the talk page. If you can add it back with out the formating damage you are more then welcome. Sorry :-/--Anthony 20:25, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if there is etiquette about removing such mediation request tags, but in any case the mediation page mentions a couple of other less formal options, including Wikipedia:Request_for_comments, which might be preferable. This seems to be a fairly simple case, and just getting a few more eyeballs to increase the size of the consensus should be sufficient. I assume that Efreeti would be willing to defer in that case, even if still convinced his interpretation is preferable? David Oberst 20:38, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I have listed it in Request for comments as well. I am a reasonable person. As long as someone can provide good reason why HackingNetflix has the merit to be exclusively listed and not other good sites, then I am willing to defer and let the HNF link stay. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Efreeti (talk • contribs) on 2006-04-25 14:51:39.

Where does anyone say they want HackingNetflix to be exclusively listed?--Anthony 22:50, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Don't forget to sign your posts (4 tildes) - also, they request RfC posts be dated (5 tildes). As far as "good reason", it isn't as if your original questioning of the link was somehow bad, but I hope you won't eventually try and distinguish between "I've been been given the 'good reason' I asked for", and "the established consensus is to keep the link, but I think it is wrong", and continue to revert in the latter case. My sense of a Wikipedia consensus is that it doesn't involve persuading each participant that it is correct, and if a number of new editors come along and the considered opinion shifts the other way, I'll be mildly disappointed, but I won't keep putting the link back in. David Oberst 21:25, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Summary of Arguments against HackingNetflix.com Link (Start here if you are short on time)

This is a clean up of the above arguments sections.

Background Information: HackingNetflix.com is an amateur news blog that covers a range of issues from Netflix, Blockbuster, New DVD releases, HD DVD to others, but with a main focus on Netflix.

Position: The HackingNetflix.com link should not be listed under Netflix's Link section.

  • Argument 1: There are many professional websites that provide accurate, high-impact, news coverage of Netflix. If these professional newsites are not listed, Hackingnetflix, an amateur news blog site, shouldn't be listed either. An example of a great professional IT website that covers Netflix is: CNet News. It contain major news stories about Netflix sorted in chronological order.
  • Argument 2: There are many amateur news blogs on the internet that provide similiar coverage compared to HackingNetflix. It is unfair to exclusively list HackingNetflix and not list others. Example one: http://www.topix.net/com/netflix provides up to date netflix news from a variety of sources. Extremely good coverage of all aspects of Netflix. Example two: Netflixfan Blog Content is also similiar to Hacking Netflix.
  • Argument 3: The quantity of Netflix content on Hackingnetflix can vary greatly. HNF is a news blog that covers a variety of issues that are not directly related to Netflix. When I first visited the website during mid April, up to half of its articles are not direcly related Netflix. See HNF's march archive: http://www.hackingnetflix.com/2006/03/index.html.

Counter arguments:

  • Pro HNF often states that Hacking Netflix is a good popular blog.

I do not dispute the fact hackingnetflix is a decent news blog. I am raising the issue on why Hackingnetflix should be given special treatment when there are just as good if not better news sites that have been ignored.

  • Pro HNF often argue that there is a consensus.

This argument is very misleading. A consensus of a few contributors on the talk page is not a accurate reflection of the consensus of the people who visit main article page nor the general public. Those who have contributed so far are often biased and come to the discussion with a preconceived notion in support of HNF without even reading the arguments. If the opposing commentators really wanted to provide Netflix page with a great news links, one would have expected them to offer/sugguest other good news sites. Instead, most are fixated on just the merit of Hackingnetflix site alone and come into the discussion defending their favorite netflix blog.

  • Hackingnetflix is ranked 2nd/3rd on google.

While that is a notable accomplishment, it does not justify a listing on Wikipedia. The page ranking changes based on which keywords are entered and which search engine is used, "Netflix", "Netflix News", "Netflix News Blog". Just like wikipedia doesn't list news from 2nd/3rd search results from Yahoo/MSN/AOL or google's 4th/5th/6th search results, it shouldn't be listing HNF because of google's 2nd/3rd search results on certain key words. Pages should be considered based on their content and the contents comparison to other sites.

  • Manuel Villanueva's personal webpage is listed, why do you not object to that link?

Associated Press has interviewed Manuel Villanueva in regards to his experience with Netflix's throttling. The AP article "'Throttling' angers Netflix renters" directly mentions him in relation to Netflix. AP stories are widely circulated and this makes Manuel noteworthy. Since the AP story is about his experiences with netflix, and his website details his experiences with netflix, this makes his website noteworthy and relevant under "Throttling"'s link section. --Efreeti 23:49, 25 April 2006 (UTC) <!Please start a new section if you want to include summary for pro HNF link.>

   === Arguments in support of Hacking Netflix ===
Argument 1: No one site delivers anywhere near the level of news about Netflix as HackingNetflix. CNet does not deliver anywhere near the same level as HackingNetflix, and they cover MUCH MUCH MUCH more then Netflix.
Argument 2: HackingNetflix is not "just another" Netflix site. It is, has, and continues to be rated as the best Netflix site only behind Netflix.com itself. This of course means that more people link to HackingNetflix then any other site about Netflix. Looking at Alexa data will show the same. This is not "just another" Netflix site.
Argument 3: As it varies on every other Netflix site - Once again CNet has almost no Netflix stories where HackingNetflix every few days, if not every day.
As far as it's Google ranking. I would be one of the very last people to use Google's ranking as a sole support for the link. However with other facts (quality, visitors, content) it is worth paying attention too.
As far as Manuel's site. I DO object to this site being listed. However this is not the argument of the moment. I think the site is of VERY low quality, and for this reason alone it doesn't belong in the links section (of course it does have merits which I don't have time to get into, but I'm sure you can figure out) To go on though - Much like Manuel's site HackingNetflix is talked about time after time by the AP.--Anthony 00:22, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

This seems to be going around in circles, but I will suggest that the continued use of the term "amateur" is not helpful. If it is meant as an antonym for "commercial" this seems irrelevant to the discussion (if not actually a` distinct positive). If meant in the sense that the HNF website is "amateurish" I doubt there would be much agreement. Is there something specific you mean by the term that you could expand on? "Professional" seems to be a similar point of departure - even if the HNF link was non-contentious I wouldn't think linking to a bunch of news searches would be worthwhile - a main reason for linking to HNF is the "value-added" it provides - I wouldn't add the HNF link merely as an alternative search engine for stories on Netflix. The value of HNF is that it consolidates most of the Netflix stories one might have to hunt in various places for, with a useful précis and links to the original sources. Of the examples, only "Netflix News Blog" is similar, which is where the points about HNF's notability and other attributes come in (also, one of the HNF features is a set of recent headline links from NNB). Finally, "Those who have contributed so far are often biased and come to the discussion with a preconceived notion in support of HNF without even reading the arguments" seems completely unjustified, and certainly does nothing to further a consensus. Personally I would welcome some more thoughtful editors to jump in here, but I would suggest that the default assumption be that all those who have so far (including Efreeti) have done so in good faith (if perhaps a little intemperately at times). David Oberst 02:24, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

It looks like PhaseDMA is refusing to participate in mediation - wish you'd consider. Anyway, I would be open to mediation with you Efreeti. I don't think it is necessary given the extremely minor nature of this dispute, but if you feel it's appropriate I'll give it a try. In response to your arguments: Hacking Netflix provides a level of coverage which CNet and other professional news sites rarely achieve. For example, CNet has yet to cover Netflix's expansion into HD DVD rentals. I dispute your statement that CNet News provides better news coverage of Netflix. In response to your second argument that HNF is being given special treatment, I would be happy to link to Netflixfan as well as Hacking Netflix, as you have suggested we do. As for Topix, that site is covered in ads and provides no original content of its own. It's just one of many unremarkable news aggregator sites. I have no idea why you feel this would be a better link than a site which writes all of its own content. As for your third argument, Netflix is clearly the main topic at HNF although they do cover related services and stories. I don't think that's a good argument against linking to it. Many of the "netflix" search results on CNet News only mention Netflix briefly, in passing. And currently, every one of the front page stories at HNF is about Netflix, except for one about HD DVD players and one about Blockbuster. Rhobite 21:03, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Refusing to participate in mediation has much less to do with this dispute, and much more to do with past experience. It just seems very odd to me that a uninformed party would attempt to decide on a issue, and then have no ability what-so-ever to enforce what they have decided. Unless all involved parties agree to go with what they decide it's very trivial. I'm more then welcome the RfC. Although it has the same end result it doesn't seem to display that fake level of authority that a RfM does. Throw in the fact my lack of understanding of the RfM process (I assure you as I explore Wikipedia more this is something I'll look into) is less then desirable I just see no reason to be involved. And then the entire lack of a need for it (as expressed by you)... --Anthony 21:22, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Mediation is voluntary, and you may withdraw at any time. Mediators do not rule on a dispute - they have no power to decide in favor of one party. The purpose of mediation is to facilitate compromise, and studies have shown (outside of Wikipedia) that mediation can improve outcomes. Just FYI. As I said, it's your choice. Rhobite 21:29, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Netflix RfC

Hello to all involved in this unending HackingNetflix external link debate.

I request that the side opposing the link would post their arguments in one paragraph, and then those who favor the link would post their arguments in one paragraph. I would greatly appreciate that - since this page is quite confusing.

I have not been involved in this debate, and I am not a Netflix subscriber. I am here because I saw the RfC on the appropriate page. I am just trying to help settle this "discussion" so that the users involved may move on to other better usages of their time. I will try to just use common sense and the guidelines available, and I will try to help after both sides have posted their one paragraph arguments.

Thanks, EChronicle 19:41, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../n/e/t/Talk%7ENetflix_Archive2_70a7.html"