Talk:Landing page
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This page lack of neutrality. We (marketers) need more neutral entry.
Contents |
[edit] Landing Page Handbook Image Discussion
Below is a copy of the Wikipedia:Images_and_media_for_deletion#Image:Landingpage.png images for deletion discussion for the image Image:Landingpage.png. Please provide your opinion after the box with the existing comments from the original debate. --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 23:24, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
- Image's function appears more marketing for a book than encyclopedic. — ∴ here…♠ 19:04, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
- keep the image is used as illustration of the article. It contains a book like object, which contains eye-tracking studies (heat maps). Those studies are used for landing page optimization, because they show where people look at the most on a page and which areas they ignore. There is no reference to any company or author or anything else that could be considered promotional or a violation of anybodies copyright. --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 23:05, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
- comment - I simply do not understand how showing the title page of a specific book about the subject enlightens the reader one bit. The info page for the image contains a clearly promotional link to the publishing company. The images described by Cumbrowski would be appropriate, but the image in question is a promotional shot for a trade book. I considered {{db-spam}}, but was unsure it applied to images. ∴ here…♠ 05:54, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
- Comment. How about changing the image further. I changed it already to not show the company name (company that does a lot of case studies involving heat maps) for the reasons mentioned by user:here. I kept the reference to the company for the image itself since the policies of Wikipedia regarding images tightened significantly. Some could argue that the modification of the promotional material that falls under fair use is so significant that I could claim it as my own and release it into the public domain, but I am not a lawyer. I can't use real head maps, because that would violate somebodies copyright. By using this image, fair use can be applied and credits are given too, but not highly visible (not in the article). I am open to alternative suggestions. --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 15:45, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
- Comment. This discussion should probably move back to the article's talk page. I object to the image's inclusion in the article. If it is removed and orphaned, it should clearly be deleted. I suppose I'll withdraw nomination until we can decide if it should be in the article. 3rd opinions appreciated. ∴ here…♠ 03:59, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
- Comment. How about changing the image further. I changed it already to not show the company name (company that does a lot of case studies involving heat maps) for the reasons mentioned by user:here. I kept the reference to the company for the image itself since the policies of Wikipedia regarding images tightened significantly. Some could argue that the modification of the promotional material that falls under fair use is so significant that I could claim it as my own and release it into the public domain, but I am not a lawyer. I can't use real head maps, because that would violate somebodies copyright. By using this image, fair use can be applied and credits are given too, but not highly visible (not in the article). I am open to alternative suggestions. --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 15:45, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
- comment - I simply do not understand how showing the title page of a specific book about the subject enlightens the reader one bit. The info page for the image contains a clearly promotional link to the publishing company. The images described by Cumbrowski would be appropriate, but the image in question is a promotional shot for a trade book. I considered {{db-spam}}, but was unsure it applied to images. ∴ here…♠ 05:54, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
An eye-tracking heatmap may be appropriate as an image, but I'd rather it be independant of a book title. I'm sure it is possible to find an eye-tracking heatmap, or other image subject, which is available for release under the GFDL. Thanks for moving the conversation so cleanly ;). ∴ here…♠ 23:56, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
- comment. I got that idea from User:Jehochman. It helps to separate the copy from the new comments. Maybe some universities published heat maps. They are used for various things beyond marketing, landing page optimization, usability studies etc. The book it shows is the "bible" for the subject and has also a fitting title, but I am aware of that conflict and modified the image for that reason. The book cost an arm and a leg and none of their stuff is free to republish, unfortunately :(. I will look around a bit and see if I can find something. The problem is that almost nobody puts up a creative commons or copyleft symbol, especially if that somebody does not care about it really. --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 21:00, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
- btw. this is a larger version of what we are looking for. This one is not free though :( --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 21:05, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
- I created
this image myself using 3 other heat maps as basis to make them look like a real one. What do you think? --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 21:35, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
- Wow, thanks. Looks great. My only remaining comment would be to explain briefly and link Heatmap (or appropriate), as the relevancy of the image is otherwise unclear. Thanks ;)! ∴ here…♠ 22:22, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
- I will add something to the image frame and also something to the article. How we say in Germany "Wo ein Wille ist, it auch ein Weg" meaning "where there is a will there's also a way" :) --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 23:18, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
- Done! You can now delete the other one. I will leave a comment at the IfD debate too. --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 23:21, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
- Wow, thanks. Looks great. My only remaining comment would be to explain briefly and link Heatmap (or appropriate), as the relevancy of the image is otherwise unclear. Thanks ;)! ∴ here…♠ 22:22, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] citation error
Just FYI - the SEOmoz article referred to at the bottom of this document was authored by Brian Turner, not Brian Clark :) --Randfish 00:40, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] external links
This external link [1] is in dispute. The short blog-like article offers no specifc numbers or methods and seems primarily written to promote the author's website. Further, the hosting website also contains what i consider to be objectionable amounts of advertising. See WP:EL for more information on community external link guidelines. Also, consider registering an account so that we can communicate more easily! Thanks for your contribs, hope you stick around and contribute beyond external links.. ∴ here…♠ 06:50, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
- I would not consider the article shirt, certainly not blog (short) like. Specific methods are being mentioned and the article is on the subject. The amount of advertising is consistent with sites to this subject (internet marketers write about and also do internet marketing). The only thing I can object about the reference is that the article at Wikipedia does not references to anything that would make that article in question a reference. The article is talking about specifics in regards to landing page optimization, which is not really touched on much by the Wikipedia article (yet). So I don't request the external link by itself but do reject it in the context it was used. Actual references for the content in the Wikipedia article are needed. --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 22:22, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Proposed merge from Lead capture page
I propose that stub article Lead capture page be merged here into Landing page. Two separate articles are not necessary. Each covers the same subject matter by a different name, and the first sentence of each article links to the other to help define the subject:
- Lead capture page begins "A lead capture page, or what is often called a landing page, is..."
- Landing page begins "In online marketing, a landing page or what is often referred to as a lead capture page is..."
The newer article, Lead capture page, first posted 2007-09-01, is basically a one-paragraph stub that seems to contain little if anything not covered by the longer Landing page, in existence since 2005-09-28. At the time of the merge I'll make sure that any unique points in the newer article don't get lost. --CliffC 01:57, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
- Done. --CliffC 03:20, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
