Talk:HardOCP
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Could we get more info listed as to the law suit? As well, I'm not entirely clear on the /. reference - I think the phrasing clouds comprehension a tad. Dxco 05:46, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
What has this page got to do with technology? HardOCP is just yet another hardware website. There are dozens of equally worthy site. This article should either be deleted, or expaded into something discussing the modern phenomenon of the hardware website, referencing *all* the major sites. This is just a blatant plug for one site amongst many at the moment. PEHowland 10:37, 6 November 2005
- If you disagree with it being listed in the Tech cat, feel free to remove that line. There may well be other sites worthy of the article, and some of them already have one: ArsTechnica, AnandTech, Tom's Hardware. Including succinct NPOV info about these notable publications is not plugging them. --anetode¹ ² ³ 21:05, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] Vandallism
All right kids, a reminder that valdallism is NOT COOL. I'm looking at you, Terra, we all know you're just taking a cheap stab at the site. Stop it, seriously. Also, please stop removing the Core 2 Duo tidbit. [H]ardOCP has had more than a few scandals in recent years (3.06 w/ HT, Crossfire, AM2, etc), and I would actually like to see the C2D part expanded into a complete "Scandals" section. -InorganicMatter
[edit] Scandals
What do you guys think of a "Scandals" section? I can think of several articles right off the top of my head that could go in there such as C2D, AM2, ATI's PR bitch, 3.06 HT, etc. InorganicMatter
[edit] Forum rules
Are the [H]ard|Forum rules really worth including? It's pretty standard fair as far as forum guidelines go, doesn't seem like anything noteworthy or special to [H]ardOCP. ~ Booya Bazooka 16:35, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
- Yeah, those can go. -InorganicMatter
[edit] Product Reviews
The article makes mention of how HardOCP's unconventional review format has been well received. My impression of their reviews is that they have been quite divisive in the hardware community, and it is important to note that they have both supporters and detractors. --67.71.44.44 20:38, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Possible POV?
The second paragraph in the Product Reviews section appears to have some POV bias, with words like "unfairly" and the phrase "the site's reputation and credibility have been damaged." According to whom? SnurksTC 23:43, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] WHAT YEAR WAS IT FOUNDED?
Kapn Korea 05:13, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Please keep this article neutral
Several recent versions of this article have had unnecessary bias against the site. Everyone please remember not to state opinion as fact, and to always post arguments from both sides. 22:42, 1 September 2006
[edit] Remove the Core 2 Section?
Do you guys think maybe we should remove the Core 2 section from the article now? It really isn't that recent anymore, many people have forgotten about it, and the section seems to change POV with every edit. 2:41 9/11/06 (UTC)+
[edit] Re: Scandals Section
Theoretically, a scandals section would be a good idea. In practice, however, I can think of a million ways for it to be abused. Just look at the Core 2 Duo section. It changes POV every few weeks, and is vandalized every month. It has been deleted now, and I think we should leave it that way. Some people don't understand that Wikipedia articles are not places for personal bias.
[edit] Sources?
- Can anyone include some third party sources on the subject? Thanks! Wickethewok 21:13, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] General Mayhem
The "General Mayhem" section is unprofessionally written, both in tone and in its obvious negative bias. Please remedy this. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.56.86.252 (talk) 05:38, 26 February 2007 (UTC).
[edit] Delete
Bring back the deletion discussion. As stated in the archive: "This entry is a blatant plug for a hardware review website and is not the sort of material to be included in an encyclopedia. HardOCP is one hardware review website of many hundreds and is not of any particular significance"—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kashk5 (talk • contribs).
- What's your evidence for it being a marketing ploy? I vote that it should stay: it's one of the most well-known, tech-related sites on the Internet so it's notable enough on that basis, imo. -- Hux 15:14, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Page Title
Didn't the OCP stand for "OverClockers Paradise"
136.145.8.179 (talk) 18:29, 29 November 2007 (UTC)