Talk:Mevio

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled[edit]

Might be a good idea to add the extreme controversy over business practices, contracts, Mr. Curry's reliability/trustworthiness (not quite the right word, but whatever). I don't know it nearly well enough to Be Bold, but I've heard it discussed in numerous unrelated forums so someone out there must be able to.

This article is starting to read more and more like anti Mevio propaganda. Whilst I am aware that there are MEVIO haters out there, it's only fair that we treat them with the same amount of respect and unbiasedness that companies like Revision 3 get. Wiki is supposed to be an unbiased source, let's not forget this. Perhaps a complete re-write, something taken from the middle of the road, would be a good idea. Thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.110.251.192 (talk) 12:17, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]


== TO ADAM CURRY ==

STOP DELETING THE CRITICISMS THAT PEOPLE POST. I POSTED A VERY TRUE CRITICISM ABOUT FUDGING NUMBERS, BUT YOU DELETED IT.


[edit]

This article reads like an advertisement for podshow. Not only does it list self promoting links in the external links section, it links to many of the podshow owned websites. In fact, all of the external links are to podshow properties. Someone has gone so far as plug podshow's hosting plans saying "which provides unlimited free hosting for podcasts". This is not only factually incorrect, isn't there adinsertion involved? It furthers the arguement that this is wiki spam. There are several entirely non-notable podcasts listed in podshow's podcasts, but not any sort of inclusive list, nor a clear, definitive external link pointing to one place where all podshow's podcasts may neatly be scanned. Only bulky, ad-filled external links, some of which violate the majority of wiki policy on ext links. IE: conflict of interest, redirection sites, excessive advertising etc.. This article needs to be re-written and for the love of god SOURCES please, not a single source cited and someone's throwing around actual $ figures of a VC deal with Podshow. In my mind, it could not be clearer that this article is tanamount to marketing under the guise of a wiki article. I'd love to hack and slash out non-notables such as Marcus Couch, the Extra Super Action Show? and indiepodder.org (which is 404ing now-a-days) but they are obviously not notable enough to stand alone in wikipedia so I'll let others help to fix the massive problems with this article. FFS, this article is so bold that it links to the "pressroom" of podshow, how convenient.

"PodShow aims to help people to podcast and publish their podcasts, and to help listeners to find podcasts that suit their interests. It also plans to use the marketing potential of podcasts by allowing advertisers to find the podcasts their target audiences will listen and allow those podcasts to put commercials on their podcasts and receive money for it."

Need I say more? Ad Copy, and rather generic at that. This entire article should be re-written, if not deleted and resubmitted altogether. Someone's had a field day promoting podshow with this article. Please, wiki community, HELP! 71.234.110.209 10:00, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is unabashed promotion of their products, and the bias is severe. In my own opinion, the whole page should be deleted.G.AC 19:14, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am inclined to agree that in its current form, this article should be purged. I would like to see a neutral, fairly written entry on Podshow, but perhaps an full deletion would get some much needed attention. Eventually this article will have to be cleaned up as I agree that it is pure promotion.Testerer 18:45, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've pretty much rewritten the article, provided sources, expanded info on the music network, added a controversy section, added an infobox, etc --Spungbob Squierpints 17:16, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Better[edit]

I think it is better now after your edits but still "adverty" so I reinstated the tags. The external links were full of Spam and I felt it worth another complete read. Here are some examples i think are quite "promotional". Again, having links to individual podcasts in external links and links to numerous podshow related sites does really comply with WP: External Links.

Here are a few examples, I won't even comment on them individually, it's obvious.

  • PodShow is a social networking website, podcast directory, podcast delivery network, and music store.
  • Podshow was founded on October 2004 by Adam Curry and Ron Bloom, with the aim of helping people to podcast and publish their podcasts and to help listeners to find podcasts that suit their interests.
  • It also plans to use the marketing potential of podcasts by allowing advertisers to find the podcasts their target audiences will listen and allow those podcasts to put commercials on their podcasts and receive money for it.
  • PodShow runs indiePodder.org (formerly iPodder.org), and Podcast Alley, podcast directories that can be used to help peoplefind and subscribe to podcasts.
  • PodSafe Music, created and supported by PodShow...
  • Podsafe music is the term that has been coined in the wake of the podcasting explosion.
  • Why does this article attempt to redefine Podsafe? Boldly linking to the wiki article that says something else altogether? Not really a quote but I have to ask.
  • PodShow advocates and facilitates the production of podsafe music (music which can be used in podcasts without any licensing difficulties,) by both independent and signed musicians, and its use and promotion by podcasters.
  • The site operates at no cost to listeners, artists, or podcasters.
  • PodShow Delivery Network, which provides unlimited free hosting for podcasts.

OK, ok, so it is pretty much the whole article. I'm not sure what was changed, it actually reads like more of ad than before. It is filled with unreferenced material. Virtually the same website is used as a reference throughout the entire article. That website isn't exactly concrete and world renown. The criticisms subsection reads like a press release. In my opinion, this article is in bad shape and needs either a deletion, or a full rewrite. Testerer 03:45, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another look revealed that even the infobox is Adverty. Cost of registration? A Social Content Site? Direct link to an ad supported site at the top of this article? Goodness this article needs help. Testerer 03:48, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KATG and Podshow, recent Edits[edit]

Can we please just stick to podshow related content and improving the accuracy of this article? Gossip like KATG claiming they know the total downloads from podshow and unreferenced polemics such as this tend to dissuade us from really improving this article. There are enough issues with this article without having to get into a gossip war regarding KATG.

It is the truth though.

Wikipedia has been quite kind to Keith and Chemda and I'd hope not to see more vandalism on this article. If it has such importance, please add it to the article for KATG or more accurately and fairly expand the criticisms section in this article using reliable and trustworthy sources. Thanks. Testerer 17:49, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is the people who are editing this article are either podshow groupies or KATG fans. And this article is written EXTREMELY like and ad. Especially in the criticisms section, one part of it reads "Controversy has ensued due to informal claims being made by third parties that lack substantiating evidence." That is COMPLETELY biased against KATG. This article needs to be rewritten, and fast, before it spawns a new group of Adam Curry lovers. Also, I'll know if someone deletes this comment, I'm gonna be checking frequently. Loveshams 14:15, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Someone might want to write about how PodShow is mysteriously kicked off of Sirius Sattelite Radio.

--


To an outside party as myself, the thing about the guy from Keith and the Girl talking contesting the number of downloads of his show and whatnot seems quite inappropriate. If anything, it seems as if he is advertising for himself rather than anything else. If there is a need to keep it to appease the fans of Keith and the Girl, then at least move it to the 'controversy' section. At least there it can be treated in its correct context, rather than elsewhere in the article where it's being used as a assertion of a fact. Lovesham, you're not exactly arguing anything legitimate. This article is not a resource for Keith and the Girl fans to talk about their show, rather, it should be concerned with just the information regarding Podshow. If you can find data to verify the claim about the number of downloads had, rather than what seems like hear-say. It might be biased, but that's because of the nature of Wikipedia - information that is included must be verifiable. Mainly.generic 03:00, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Restored[edit]

I've restored the article after it was deleted through prod process. The substantial news coverage indicates notability. utcursch | talk 06:18, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Podshow-Logo.jpg[edit]

Image:Podshow-Logo.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 08:33, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't anybody though that the word "podcast" is a little repetitive? I mean, it appears 46 times ("the", being a common word, appears less than double than that, 75 times). Besides that this article looks "adverty", it looks IMO, redundant on that word. Mainly this paragraph:

"PodShow was founded on October 2004 by Adam Curry and Ron Bloom, with the aim of helping people to podcast and publish their podcasts, and to help listeners to find podcasts that suit their interests. It also plans to use the marketing potential of podcasts by allowing advertisers to find the podcasts their target audiences will listen and allow those podcasts to put commercials on their podcasts and receive money for it.". Makes me remember "Do you want spam with your spam, dear?" and Marklar language :-) Ktulu789 03:03, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Name change[edit]

An entry on the change of the name from "PodShow" to "mevio" would be very relevant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.199.137.73 (talk) 06:15, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RSS hijacked?[edit]

After the release of Podshow+ on July 6, 2006 other podcasts's RSS feeds were hijacked by Podshow, with Podshow copyrights overwriting original feeds.

What does it mean for an RSS feed to be hijacked? The RSS article doesn’t mention hijacking anywhere. Were they hacked? Were they duplicated? {{What?}} —Frungi (talk) 15:36, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I remember, they rolled out a software upgrade which had a bug which broke the RSS feeds in a way some people felt were suspicious. This was fixed quickly, and Adam Curry apologised strongly on his podcast, saying it was just a bug and not an evil plot. I would definitely say that "hijacking" is not the right word. Haakon (talk) 15:44, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Mevio. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 14:24, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Mevio. 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 01:42, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Teaching[edit]

Fahad Ali abro 111.119.183.16 (talk) 11:24, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mevio&oldid=1202812254"