Talk:Pronto

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] This is not a recreated article

On September 27, 2006, an article on a website named Pronto was deleted through the AfD process. This article, created today, is on a completely separate subject, so other than the recycling of the name, this is effectively a new article. —C.Fred (talk) 01:57, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] This article should be about Pronto.com

The condoms should be under Pronto-condoms. Was the previous article already about http://www.pronto.com? I remember an obvious spam page was in this space a couple months ago, but that was for an obscure (tutoring?) service. Pronto.com is not in beta and is the full-fledged comparison shopping play by IAC/InterActiveCorp, owner of Ask.com, Ticketmaster, Citysearch, etc. See http://www.comparisonengines.com/2006/10/02/why-pronto-will-succeed/ for what that means. And as the "best online price-comparison site" as determined by Kiplinger (http://www.kiplinger.com/tools/slideshows/bestofeverything/2.htm), disclaimer: link found on Pronto's site, Pronto seems worthy of an article by itself. For comparison, similar sites such as NexTag, PriceGrabber, and even ShopWiki have articles. 66.108.11.199 05:08, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

First, the previously deleted article was for pronto.com. If you read the deletion discussion, you'll note that a set of Google results invoke mention "price comparison." So, apparently it has come out of beta in the last few months. It also means that deletion review is the correct venue to request creation of the article.

Second, Pronto.com does not have a better claim to the Pronto page title than Pronto condoms. If a good article for the website gets made at Pronto.com, then I think it's fitting to put a link to that article at the top of this one. However, I don't see any reason to move this article about the condoms, at least not at this time. —C.Fred (talk) 20:06, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Here's that about:

http://www.pronto.com/help/about/ourCompany.do?

Its also a firefox recommended ad on and powers the shopping search on iwon, excite, and myway.com. I'd write the article but I work for pronto. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.176.193.35 (talk • contribs) 23:00, 19 December 2006 (UTC).

Nothing self-published is going to make the site any more notable. —C.Fred (talk) 02:44, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

http://www.kiplinger.com/personalfinance/tools/slideshows/bestofeverything/2.htm http://www.techcrunch.com/2006/10/24/the-new-mozilla-recommended-add-ons-list-the-winnersand- the-losers/ http://www.nydailynews.com/business/story/479851p-403772c.html http://www.pronto.com/CrainsNewYorkBusiness.pdf http://www.kiplinger.com/features/archives/2006/11/bargainsites.html http://www.thesimpledollar.com/2006/11/07/10-firefox-plugins-that-save-you-money/ http://directmag.com/searchline/11-01-06-Pronto/ http://blog.searchenginewatch.com/blog/061002-130138 http://www.pronto.com/MediaPost.pdf http://www.clickz.com/showPage.html?page=3623546 http://www.internetretailer.com/dailyNews.asp?id=19999 http://channels.lockergnome.com/web/archives/20060927_online_comparison_shopping_with_pronto.phtml http://www.techweb.com/wire/ebiz/193005871 http://www.pronto.com/WSJ5_04.pdf http://www.pronto.com/NYT3_28.pdf

NYTimes and WSJ not legit enough? Its certainly more then the obscure south african condoms. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by GLGNYC (talk • contribs) 21:22, 20 December 2006 (UTC).

If it bothers you that much, go ahead and write Pronto.com, and then we'll sort out how to disambiguate. The condoms article stays, regardless. —C.Fred (talk) 22:49, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Drawbacks of Pronto Condoms

There are some concerns about this condom that should be mentioned in this article. I have two main concerns:

1. This condom demonstrates incorrect use on putting on a condom. It fails to have the user pinch the air out of the tip of the condom. By not doing this the condom is more likely to break during intercourse.

2. The opening of this condom has the packaging digging into the condom when the seal is broken. While the website states that these condoms are tested I would venture that this testing is prior to packaging and not after.

There is further evidence that the company may be lacking in essential condom knowledge. On the website it mentions tearing open a traditional condom with the user's teeth without stating why it is so bad to do. Also, the website recommends storing the condom in one's wallet. This is a poor choice because the temperature is greater and friction from opening and closing the wallet damages the condom.

It bothers me that this condom has been lauded so much while ignoring its inferiority to tradtional condoms. While the idea behind this condom is commendable, these drawbacks need to be addressed.

The wiki addition of conern #1 should be straightforward. However, wiki addition concern #2 is unclear because access to these condoms is only available in South Africa. I can base concern #2 only on the video promoting these condoms. I would give references to sites that address these criticisms, but I can find none. However, I think the criticisms are valid and clear. Any suggestions on how entry edits can address these concerns are welcome. Schoolglutton 16:55, 20 February 2007 (UTC)