Talk:Tribe.net

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

first post! (j/k)

check me out on tribe. T.J. Gillies

"On January 21st, Tribe.net sought to censor Wikipedia and had all reference to the mismanagement of UI fiasco removed from their Wikipedia entry."

This statement is completely false. I just went through the whole history of this article and that never happened. It's a libellous falsehood.

Contents

[edit] UI fiasco

I removed this text because it was biased and also poorly written. Errors include inappropriate use of 'whom' and 'ostracize'.

On January 19th, 2006 Tribe.net changed the layout against the wishes of the community, potentially ostracizing their customer base. The management of Tribe stated this was a good thing because the received approximately 40% positive feedback during a small beta phase with 3000 users (a relatively small percentage of their user base). Despite having implemented many of the beta users suggestions, the live version still had some serious problems when compared to the UI most tribe users were used to.
With no less than 48 hours from the switch, user reaction was dramatic. The overall general opinion of current members of Tribe is that the new design, layout, and overall feel of the new website go against many of their original reasons for joining the site. Tribe's original "grassroots" approach to member-based forum monitoring and Tribe's focus on alternative lifestyles and the arts was appealing to those whom found other sites like MySpace or Friendster to be rather broad based and commercial. The new design, along with obvious apathy from Tribe.net's ranking officials and marketing team has turned several long-time users away. Which, in turn, results in less new viewers since Tribe.net’s primary source of advertisement is referral-based?
On January 21st, Tribe.net sought to censor Wikipedia and had all reference to the mismanagement of UI fiasco removed from their Wikipedia entry.

Kent Wang 16:34, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: UI Fiasco

i revised and reposted the previous material minus a lot of the editorial perspective because i felt that some mention of the UI controversy was warranted. here is what i changed the above text to:

On January 19th, 2006 Tribe.net changed its layout and User Interface (UI). The management of Tribe claimed that they received approximately 40% positive feedback during a small beta phase with 3000 users (a relatively small percentage of their user base).

User reaction to the new UI, coupled with the lingering discontent from previous month's prohibition of explicit conduct, has led to rampant controversy amongst many of the site's long-time users. A large and outspoken group of current members of Tribe have repeatedly expressed that the new design, layout, and overall feel of the new website go against many of their original reasons for joining the site. Tribe's original "grassroots" approach to member-based forum monitoring and the focus of many tribe.net participants on alternative lifestyles and the arts was appealing to those who found other sites like MySpace or Friendster to be rather broad based and commercial.

Tribe.net has repeatedly stated that they have no intention of reverting to the previous look or interface of the site.

Merlinswheel 01:26, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of social networking websites on AfD

List of social networking websites is currently an AfD candidate. You are invited to partake in this discussion. Czj 19:22, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Caution Encouraged

I removed this sentence "Calls to the parent company of tribe.net say that don't know if the site will return. 'We are a news organization and things other then news aren't important to us'" because it is unqualified. It does not say who called, when, and who responded. The word "if" also suggests a new issue which, so far, is unsupported by facts.

STemplar 02:04, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. --Hurtstotouchfire 02:12, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Umm..look, I really don't want to start an edit war here, but this statement, "They have stated, 'We are a news organization and things other then news aren't important to us'" just sounds really stupid to be an official corporate statement. Again, it's unqualified and I object to it being placed back in here without credentials. Putting a label, in small print that a "citation is needed" doesn't cut it. Please get the citation, then put it back.
STemplar 02:17, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Not my edit. I have no idea where that came from. --Hurtstotouchfire 02:21, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Also agreed. Not only is it unqualified, it's unnecessary. Kawaikunai 02:22, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, knew it wasn't yours - sorry I didn't qualify to whom I was speaking. Cheers.
STemplar 02:32, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] starting to come online again...

Actually, I logged on and actually got to the new interface for just a moment. Three columns, plus animated advertisment that was VERY slow to load. It looked pretty messy/busy to me, but then I actually *liked* the way it was before.