Talk:PlentyofFish

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 16 March 2007. The result of the discussion was Keep.

Contents

[edit] Frind's Educational Background

Using PlentyOfFish's About The Team as a source for his educational background is stupid stupid stupid. I just checked it out and the British Colombia Institute of Technology does not have a Computer Science diploma. I've changed that sentence to reflect that. --OMouse (talk) 17:42, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Using PlentyOfFish's About The Team as a source is about as good as most of the other citations. Most of then are either just articles that quote Frind or web ranking information that cannot be verified. Chsmith77 (talk) 23:08, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Improve this article

This article currently reads like an add for the Plenty of fish website with lines like "PlentyofFish is an extremely popular social networking and online dating service". Also it needs to have some sources.--82.10.116.169 11:57, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Not only does it read like an ad but the citations are all just claims make by Markus without any supporting evidence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chsmith77 (talk • contribs) 18:05, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Any attempt to add any content that doesn't serve to make POF appear above it's competitors is deleted by the same IP. This isn't an online dating guide. I agree the entire entry should be deleted. Ghosttowns 11:34, 3 June 2006 (UTC)ghosttownsGhosttowns 11:34, 3 June 2006 (UTC)


I don't think this should be deleted, the site is probably a pretty huge one with millions of people on it, for that reason, enormous popularity it has significance

Wikipedia doesn't do "probably". You have to show a verifiable source for claims of notability. Bearcat 09:22, 5 June 2006 (UTC)



Plentyoffish is my site. Ghosttowns stalking people and spamming their phone is not something I think the wikipedia encourages. I did not create this entry plentyoffish has 750,000 visitors a day. And is in the top 30 sites in canada according to alexa. Its in the top 5 dating sites in the USA according to hitwise. http://onlinepersonalswatch.typepad.com/rankings/ and ranking.websearch.com records it as one of the top 50 sites in the world in terms of pageviews.

I looked up 2 of the IP's posting negative comments here, one of them was banned for stalking women repeatidly. The other was banned for being reported over 50 times under 5 accounts. The users who are deleted are given a status message saying why they were deleted, that anyone can see when searching for their username. There should be no confusion as to why they were deleted and banned.

As for the alexa "reviews" they are created by the same forum troll on the same day, just click on view all reviews to see the date and time. I think the " 200 fake accounts were created on my static DSL IP and they all had the same browser and IP and password but it wasn't me" post explains it all.

Also what is the point of this entry, where is the citation? "POF's moderators have explained that routine maintenance wipes out accounts using known proxy servers, anonymous surfing services but sometimes legitimate users as well. In some cases, entire IP scopes are blocked to the dismay of members. In other cases there seems to be no justifiable reason for accounts being deleted."

The moderators are random people who have no knowledge of the site or its operations. There are 1 million people with moderating privilages and it takes 7 moderators out of 10 voting to delete a thread for it to be deleted. I highly doubt that the above was ever stated, anyone with any kind of internet knowledge would laugh at such a statement. It is impossible to block based on IP, the vast majority of IP's shift every month. You would end up blocking hundreds of thousands of users if you tried to control people via IP blocks. There is also no known list of proxy servers or annon surfing programs, again blocking based on IP's is pretty much impossible unless you have less then 20 IP's you can moniter on a dailly basis.

June 5th

[edit] February 2007 changes

The article was edited by me to render it more encylopediac in tone and less like advertising. It still lacks citations to external sources. It is unclear to me whether it should be deleted, as it comes close to advertising or spam, but if it remains it should conform with Wikipedia guidelines. And both the article and this page appear to be attracting vandals. If people think it should be deleted, then take it to AfD rather than making changes which could be construed to be vandalism. Kablammo 23:43, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Good job. POF is certainly notable. Even got a mention in the NY Times (laff). It gets lots of Google hits, the prob is finding the RS amongst the chaff. --Justanother 00:04, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
This is funny. --Justanother 00:06, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
This should help. --Justanother 00:09, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deleted profiles

Information about any dispute over deleted profiles or moderator behavior must have some reference to a "reliable source" such as a newspaper, see WP:V and WP:RS. It can even just mention that there is a dispute. Otherwise that dispute cannot appear here! Thank you. --Justanother 03:35, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] POF (copied from my talk page --Justanother 02:56, 23 February 2007 (UTC))

Why do you keep reverting changes to the Plenty of Fish entry? The article reads like its blatant advertising, and completely biased on promoting it. Yet anyone who visits the site, upon checking the forums or even other web-based feedback forums on POF will see there are problems with accounts vanishing. This is a POF issue, and should be addressed in the Wiki. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.25.186.67 (talk) 18:17, 22 February 2007

Hi. The problem is that wikipedia is not about "THE TRUTH". Wikipedia is about "the truth (or some approximation of it) that has already been presented in reliable sources". I am sorry, but if you cannot find a reliable source that supports your claim then I, as a diligent editor here, cannot allow it to remain in the article. Please see WP:PILLARS, WP:V, WP:RS. We have to follow our rules! Otherwise this place would be complete anarchy. --Justanother 18:23, 22 February 2007 (UTC)