Talk:SmugMug

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article was nominated for deletion on September 5, 2006. The result of the discussion was Keep.

edited to remove vandalism -April 20th 2008

[edit] Notability

This was written by the people themselves. Smugsmug NOT known, not nearly as much as any of the other ones —Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.140.215.150 (talk • contribs) 02:13, March 1, 2006

Disclaimer: I am one of the owners of SmugMug.

Seems strange to defend my company here, but to say we're "NOT known" is pretty silly. A simple Google, Technorati, or Alexa search (using our real name - not 'Smugsmug') will show you that we're extremely well-known, comparable in traffic to Kodak, Shutterfly, and Snapfish and higher than Sony's ImageStation. We have more than 75,000,000 photos for heaven's sake.

I've refrained from editing this entry because I understand and respect the guidelines of Wikipedia, but we have a lot more to offer than listed here.

Onethumb 01:08, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I am a dedicated user of Smugmug and I have met the owners and get paid for certain work that I do for them, but I am not an employee of smugmug.

I have to disagree that Smugmug is not known. I came to smugmug because of online articles and articles in various newspapers. What is not clear is which "other ones" the first commenter was talking about. My guess (and it's just a guess) is that flikr is more well known than smugmug. But I seriously doubt that pbase, mpix, exposure manager, or other more direct competition of smugmug is more well known.

Frankly I'd be interested to know who it was that wrote the initial comment. It's interesting that there was no signature or any information left about the commenter.

--Lanemik 23:47, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] References

I just added some references as asked to by the previous editor. Since I am the founder and CEO, I'm trying to be as impartial as I can and just add links to reliable external sources, like Forbes and PC Magazine and the like.

If I'm doing something wrong, do let me know - I'm not trying to pimp my company here, since I really do love the ideals Wikipedia stands for. But it'd be a shame to get delisted because there weren't proper references by reputable media.

Thanks!

--Onethumb 12:58, 13 June 2006 (PST)

I think 12 references is a bit too much for one place. Can you select... lets say 2 of them and put rest here in talk page? 2 references should be enough for a casual visitor and if somebody wanted more details, they can come here for the full list. WP:WEB requires "...multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself.", but I dont think all need to be present in the article itself. -Shinhan 14:07, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

This page has been added to the cleanup list. The article reads like PR. Among other things, linking to a dozen brag-file comments to "prove" that the company has good customer service is inappropriate for an encyclopedia. --Nate Silva 16:02, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi Onethumb. I think all the references are over-the-top. A few are okay, but to go too far makes the page look like it was written by Smugmug employees. I think that if the cleanup crew makes it more encyclopedic, it will only reflect positively on Smugmug. Let your reputation speak for itself! --Nate Silva 16:08, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi Nate Silva. I agree completely - I didn't even think those references were necessary, but people keep trying to delist this page as if we're not relevant. Their suggested course of action was media references - so I provided some in an effort to not get delisted. I'm happy to have them removed, since they quickly get out of date anyway. Anyone can Google search for our recent news if they really care, IMHO. Thanks! --Onethumb 23:14, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

How about you put references here to the talk page? Shinhan 05:27, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I finally got an idea how to make all those references look nicer. I've reformated them into bulleted point while retaining all of the references cited. That way begining paragraph will not have uggly string of numbers but only [1]. Shinhan 10:26, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removing ad status

Ok I'm removing the ad status and original research, I was surfing around for a photosharing site. Though the claims of Smugmugs are abit unbelievable (that I can upload how much I want in basic account), I find no factual errors about this text. I'm not a user of smugmug/I don't own it Emj 11:24, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Argh now I see that people are fighting over this. Sigh... Grow up, there is nothing different about this and anyother wikipedian website entry. Of course if someone has any good claim of why this is an ad please tell me. Emj 11:28, 23 February 2007 (UTC)