Talk:Rocketboom

I added the following material which is in dispute.

In March 2008, Compete.com named Rocketboom one of the fastest growing video startups on the internet with 22,894 viewers.^[1] In June 2008, Compete.com showed a 36% drop to 14,625 viewers.^[2]

From the talk page, Andrew Baron's summary of the article is as follows:

The main message of the compete citing that is important for people looking into Rocketboom is this: "Compete, an industry standard stats company, ranked Rocketboom on top". Everything else leads the audience to a muddy interpretation or, by your edits, a poor or wrong interpretation.

I feel that Andrew's summary of the article is not accurate (the quote is demonstrably false) and that the current summary on the article is not only not neutral, but inaccurate. The core question: if a third party source says Rocketboom is a fast growing site in March, then the same source shows traffic to be significantly down 90 days later, 1) should this information be presented at all and 2) if so, what is a neutral way of presenting this information? Cleanr (talk) 12:18, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

As I mentioned, the REASON why the stats # is down, is because we completely revamped the website and all of the URL structures. This is known as starting over in the SEO category. This is a factual consequence that often explains why. As you can see from the more recent TubeMogul stats and other public stats like on Youtube, as a matter of fact, we have been growing in size. Andrewbaron (talk) 14:40, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Im not going to argue about this again. Its been covered for weeks above. Cleanr has not only revealed but also confirmed that he does not study this kind of information and so he does not understand how to read the information and what the implications are. Above, he is asking more questions and trying to disprove authroity. Cleanr is saying that the COmpete article is flase and that COmpete lied apparently. I cant think of a more desperate way to try and get your point across. Trying to reason with Cleanr is like trying to explain to a large fish in the sea why they shouldnt eat you. Reason does not work with this person. If anyone is willing to take the time to look through all of the data above, this will be clear. Andrewbaron (talk) 13:14, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

For the record, I do not have an opinion about compete.com nor do I think the compete.com article is false (how would I know?). I do think that "Compete... ranked Rocketboom on top" is an inaccurate summary of that article as written. Cleanr (talk) 13:24, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

That quote was from my discussion, but those words were NEVER a part of the article so why are you arguing about a quote I said in the discussion, and takingit out of context in your typically sneaky way? Cleanr, you agreed before to stop editing this article do to the disputes we were having. So why did you come back and start editing the article again? This time, you were so obvious in adding new negative information without explaining or giving context for the information, it seems like it was a gut reaction and now you are back. Why did you change your mind after agreeing that you were biased and after you had agreed to stop editing the article? Andrewbaron (talk) 14:16, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

We shouldn't be reporting statistics just at the same time as they are being reported, since WP:NOT#NEWS wikipedia is not a place to keep up to date of the latest developments. The article already states that the info is from March 2008, we don't need to continously keep with the current status.

Also, we should always use secondary sources that studies the data on context. For example, we have no idea of how much of the decrease is caused by the arrival of summer, new ways to measure, the company offering other stuff, etc. (notice that I wrote this before starting to read this section explaining that they had revamped his URLs, this is the sort of detail whose interpretation should be done by published secondary sources and not by editors) --Enric Naval (talk) 04:14, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

P.D.: for the same reasons as above, we shouldn't mention the Tubemogul data directly as it is a primary source, but refer instead to a published analysis of the data, or to articles mentioning the audience of Rocketboom. In othe words, use a secondary source. --Enric Naval (talk) 04:30, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, that all sounds reasonable to me. Andrewbaron (talk) 20:09, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to Enric and Pepso for adding info about the Sony deal. There is one important correction: Sony did not acquire Rocketboom. Its a distribution and Advertising deal. Rocketboom is still independently controlled. Thus, instead of saying: "Rocketboom was acquired by Sony Pictures Television for a seven-figure guarantee plus a share of future revenues generated by the show. " I would suggest this change: " Sony Pictures Television acquired a distribution and advertising contract with Rocketboom for a seven-figure guarantee plus a share of future revenues generated by the show." I decided not to update the article myself and sent a wikipedia mail to Enric several days but have not heard back so I wanted to update this talk page in case someone else is willing to make the edit. Thanks! 59.167.248.215 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 04:18, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

When this article was started, one could guess that there was only Amanda at the helm. But as of late, the show has now went through two more hosts, and with a fourth on the way, it would seem more logical to list the hosts in the article, instead of on the top. I'll give a go at it. Devilmanozzy (talk) 15:42, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Rocketboom. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051224201349/http://a.parsons.edu/~baron/ to http://a.parsons.edu/~baron/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:58, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Mucho silencio nada de opinión o comentario base lo que se está modificando y a vista se mira su soberbia 2806:2F0:6021:CDBE:189A:6EC1:A48F:2101 (talk) 21:50, 19 November 2023 (UTC)