Talk:CouchSurfing
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] .
The criticism about cs being a dating site it is totally out of scope. This happens on all social sites. And it does happen on HospitalityClub too for instance. See "Dating: some people really mistake the club for a flirting/partner finding platform." at http://secure.hospitalityclub.org/hc/stopspam.php?x=1 or http://www.hospitalityclub.org/hc/forum.php?action=DisplayMessage&StartMessageId=29758 or http://www.hospitalityclub.org/hc/forum.php?action=DisplayMessage&StartMessageId=53763
I would remove the criticism altogether or I would suggest to add it to all the social sites that expose a photo: flickr.com, ebay.com, amazon.com, ...
- Well, I sort of agree. Maybe there is some other quote that is more adequate? Guaka 17:05, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
- The thing is, it's probably the biggest problem on CS (discussed periodically in Amb group), and it differs from other sites in that (a) it's thin ice because we want to keep CS censorship free, and (b) any conception of "dating" people encroaching substantially on CS could seriously hurt. I don't know if I'd call it a "criticism" or if it's really worth pointing out on WP though -- my vote is remove it entirely. As a compromise I reworded and added both sides of the debate (to show that it's not some huge one-sided problem that CS is constantly fighting). Doze 14:57, 09 May 2006 (UTC)
-
- Maybe it's possible to somehow get some more serious statistics about "spam" and "dating spam" on CS. I guess it's very low...
- Also, isn't there a policy to remove recurrent spammers? That could be worth mentioning. Guaka 22:57, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Say it ain't so, Casey
I wonder about this: "CouchSurfing as we knew it doesn't exist anymore." Does this mean that it is now existing in *some new form*? Such as in www.couchsurfing.net, which looks like a replacement site (or maybe it's just a knock-off ...)?
Hopeful. --Chickensoda 05:44, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
- It its just a knock-off. No, it seems like this is it... unfortunately. :-( --Splette
Talk 06:42, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
- No this was not the end. We will start again. Like Casey says, everyone has the Flame inside him. And what happens when many Flames come together? A big fire. Look at: http://groups.google.com/group/Couchsurfing-Phoenix - 194.7.156.55 09:29, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
I want to know the reason for using the word allegedly. Does the user think that Casey Fenton is bluffing? --Anderssr 18:53, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
I didn't write that sentence (using "alleged") so I don't know, but there seems to be a lot of evidence emerging that using the term "fatal" to describe the error, while perhaps technically correct, carries misleading connotations to many. If it's a fatal error that seems to imply that CS (or at least the CS database) is dead, gone, and not coming back. The email discussions that have happened today, though, seem to suggest that CS is probably not permanently dead, and even the databse is not really fully dead. Also, "alleged" doesn't mean the writer thinks Casey is lying or bluffing or even wrong! It just means that the person who wrote that sentence can't personally vouch for whether the error was fatal or not. --Chickensoda 21:28, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
I added a link to Casey asking on an MySQL how to recover from a "DROP DATABASE" command. If someone would have said (or mailed) that to me I wouldn't have believed it. I can also remember something about a crashed harddrive, though no mention of that in the MySQL forum. And the original CS=dead message is gone from couchsurfing.com. Guaka 19:49, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
- Until they give a detailed statement of what really happened (which they promised to issue by the end of the week) we can only speculate. From what I understood they were *a bit* embarassed to admit that they deleted the database by mistake and instead vaguely spoke about an avoidable crash. However, thats ok with me. Because they implied that it was their fault and didn't try to blame it on someone else. So, in the end what difference does it make if someone crashed the harddisk by dropping a bottle of beer on the computer (yep, I managed to do this once - killed the motherboard) or by accidently performing a drop command and delete the database. It was a human error, that happens... --Splette Talk 22:32, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
- All history now, thankfully - the site's up and running again, with some changes in process - nothing too major from what I've seen, except that the whole process of recovering the site seems to have drawn the community together more. --Singkong2005 talk 06:43, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Removed bit about dating
For many of the same reasons as discussed above, I've decided to be bold and remove the discussion about the dating issue from the article. Yes, CouchSurfing, like any other hospitality network, including HospitalityClub, has a small handfull of users whose primary motive is not finding a place to stay while traveling, helping travelers, etc., but rather looking for people to hook up with.
But I don't think the fact that a few people abuse the site in this way is really noteworty enough for inclusion in this article. And if it is, then it should be included in every article on such a site. Also, listing this as a "criticism" of CS isn't appropriate unless someone can cite a notable source where CS has been criticized as such. But the only sources cited were links to CS's blog, making it largely original research.
So I've decided to go ahead and remove it, since there seems to be no good reason for including it in this Wikipedia article. Helvetica 09:18, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Recent additions
Source coverage:
etc.
- Francis Tyers · 22:48, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
- Francis, you misquoted the first two links... Here is straight from my revision:
- I just retested all the links, and the third one you quoted is the only one that doesn't work--I thought it was a GET and it looks like it's a POST after all. Is that what justifies reverting the whole thing for you?
-
- I tried searching for Wikimedia, and couldn't find anything on that site either. Does that mean that the Wikimedia Foundation article should state that it's not a non-profit? Guaka 21:20, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
- What is the fact behind "CouchSurfing reports itself to be a non-profit registered according to section 501(c)(3) of the United States"? It seems the only fact that justifies the claim "CouchSurfing reports itself to be a non-profit registered according to section 501(c)(3) of the United States" is a link to a feb 2003 demo page (the first sentence is "Warning: This site is in demo mode" and there are 8 surfers). Not really a fact about what CS *currently* report, no? Just in case you want to check, since July 25, 2004, CS reports in the footer to be "a Non-Profit Company". See http://web.archive.org/web/20040725082359/http://www.couchsurfing.com/
- So the fact "CouchSurfing reports itself to be a non-profit registered according to section 501(c)(3) of the United States" is simply false, so I removed it. If anyone thinks that it is relevant for this wiki page to state that "CS reported being a 501..., until July 2004", please add it again: I would love to read again the history of this page in few years, it is already very instructive. Of course I also expect that person to verify that CS at that time was not a 501. SO, i removed the false fact and restored the previous version. Please try to add only true and verifiable facts. --phauly 12:39, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- That's no reason to remove the valid information that CouchSurfing is a non-profit in the state of New Hampshire. Guaka 23:24, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
- Valmi, you removed a reference: "New Hampshire Web site showing CouchSurfing International is a Non-Profit Corporation" and replaced some text. Check your exact edit. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 218.185.83.34 (talk) 05:16, 21 February 2007 (UTC).
-
-
-
- I am terrible at editing these things, but I notice that many of the footnotes are not matching up correctly. --TheJDMBA ✒ 17:09 GMT, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Cleaning up criticisms again...
I'm removing this bit from the article:
"CouchSurfing claims that donations mostly help pay for "server hosting and storage, the database of world cities, and mapping software" and that "the founders and admins are volunteers".[9] Their 2005 Summary of Expenses though show that 62% of the donations in 2005 have been used for the payroll and travel expenses against only 24% on IT expenses. In 2005 CouchSurfing paid a total of $13,500.00 USD in payroll.[10]"
For one, it's inaccurate and misleading. The linked page on CS doesn't use the word "mostly," but it states that:
"CouchSurfing is a non-profit organization supported entirely by member donations. Your contributions help pay for the many costs of running CouchSurfing.com: server hosting and storage, the database of world cities and mapping software, to name a few." (emphasis added)
But even if it were a valid criticism that they had spent a whopping $13,500 a year to run a website that allows many thousands of travelers around the world to save millions of dollars in accommodation expenses, then it would still be *original research* unless a notable source can be cited which has made such a criticism. If anything, I would criticize them for not raising more money and spending maybe $50-$100,000 a year to hire a couple full-time IT maintenance people so that mayor bugs and technical problems can be fixed much faster when then pop up. But that would be original research too, so I won't include it. Helvetica 18:53, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Here is the valid sources organization_finances.htmland [1] caseys disclosure on the groups --Csdataminer 06:32, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
- Csdataminer - What the finances are isn't original research, but *stating or implying that it's something that they are or should be criticized for is* - unless you can cite a source where they're criticized for having such finances. Helvetica 11:54, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- I removed the piece about finances. The link that it was sourced to does not say that "the founders and admins are volunteers". Also the way it's written is not a simple statement of the finances, but with words like "only," is very opinionated. Including a finance section seems like a good idea, but the old one wasn't neutral or up to date. I also deleted the information about opencouchsuring. One person's blog who does not like a website is not encyclopedic.Pseudonym214 (talk) 07:21, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
-
- This type of information will be constantly removed as anything related with Casey's activities is censored out each time. After all, he has his followers and it's normal that such a thing should happen given the fact that this is an open encyclopedia. After all, if you check the profiles that are rated interested and the profiles that are rated exotic, it just happens that Casey, his brother and the other dude on payroll, just happens that their profiles are there each day. Also it is obvious that the money don't go for the site as most of the volunteer programmers ask the same type of questions - check out http://www.opencouchsurfing.org/ for example. Also, there is nowhere stated in this page and never will that there was a problem with the servers some time ago and the result is that some features are stopped, some took days to fix and the site is going offline daily for some sort of 'maintenance' 90.16.239.41 (talk) 16:21, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Citations need to be reworked
There is a mixed citation method which causes headache, and non-standard use of the note tag coupled with the ref tag makes it difficult to work with. the {{citeweb}} template should be used on all references to format them properly, and they can be given a unique tag for multiple use with that, then use the {{reflist}} template to create the references list.--Crossmr (talk) 20:25, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- Hi, did you remove the references because of their formatting or because the reference itself was a poor source? --Splette :) How's my driving? 20:49, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
