Article reads like an advert

The article reads to me like an advert. It does not seem to stick to NPOV guidelines and appears to me to be excessively positive towards the product. News such as the LeapFish spamming of a techcrunch article are missing as are references to the new owners etc.. This, I feel, has left it one sided and of little value in it's current form. As a result I have tagged the page as an advert for clean up. --Lord Matt (talk) 18:40, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have attempted to fix the article to provide the appropriate neutrality, and to bring up the controversy surrounding the engine's questionable advertising and sales practices which went unmentioned in the original posting. 72.71.239.152 (talk) 16:05, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like someone was interested in removing all the content entirely other than a one-line explanation. I'm all for that as well, though I think visitors here should be made aware of the controversial issues of this company. They come here to be informed, and the mention of controversial sales and marketing techniques should not be excluded in my opinion even if the rest of the article is scrubbed. Just my opinion though. 72.71.239.152 (talk) 16:08, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There. I cut out everything but the general summary of use and the controversy section. That should provide the kind of information people are looking for when they come here. 72.71.239.152 (talk) 16:12, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article should not be gutted that much. When you've got a controversy section longer than the rest of the article, you're introducing undue weight problems. - MrOllie (talk) 16:17, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, no problem. The current incarnation you made seems to have a good balance. 72.71.239.152 (talk) 16:43, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nice Work. The article, while not perfect has come a long way. --Lord Matt (talk) 05:14, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Features: neutrality check

The Features section appears to ahve grown very large perhaps too large and appears to have the among other things company blog posts and press releases as the evidence bearing material. This does not, I feel, properly establish notability and may, therefore, endanger neutrality--Lord Matt (talk) 18:23, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Extortion, Intimidation, Astroturfing, Spamming... true or not? More info?

It sounds like the original creator of this article (Maximus2000) takes issue with the accusations that were made at the TechCrunch news site. Perhaps the legitimacy of the claims should be discussed here? The resources seemed like clear-cut cases of the aforementioned controversial techniques (which is what prompted me to come here and post them on Wikipedia in the first place), however if there's more to this situation feel free to discuss it here. 72.71.239.152 (talk) 20:06, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reseach and references

It is my understanding that Wikipedia should not be used to house original research but should have references for sources of information and I have tried very hard to ensure that I provide references for information sources. I have no particular issue with editors that may feel I'm not as good as they are because they might be right sometimes and I have no strong reaction to my edits totally or mostly being removed so long as the article is better as a result. What matters to me is that when I come to a wikipedia article I get a well rounded subject overview of a topic.

The references I have found might not be perfect and I welcome all efforts to find better NPOV references. However, when two citations are removed in favour of one reference from the leapfish blog (by the articles original editor/author) which is not NPOV then I would have expected to find a short justification in talk rather than a rather curt personal reference in the history/edit notes.

My point is that, while I applaud editors being bold in what they do, I would advise some caution against removing things without clarifying a "why" to other editors. It is the quality of the article and not the feelings of leapfish or any given editor that are of most importance here. I am choosing to assume good intentions despite the possible ramifications of the current leapfish reputation (that I have read about) please justify my assumption here. Thank you. --Lord Matt (talk) 09:38, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Request for clarification

To make my last edit I used a search engine to see if there was evidence for a disputed line in the article. I found quite a few including one from activerain.com. However, the link in question was automatically blocked stopping me make the edit. I removed it and completed my edit. Can another editor point me to some clarification as to why that might have happened for this specific site? I felt it was a good example of friction within the online community but leave it to other editors to make a judgement call on this. --Lord Matt (talk) 09:33, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Third party sources vs the company line

Quoting Maximus2000's edit summary 'Techcrunch did not obtain data from the company - Techcrunch is an opinion blog. What they write is not necessarily fact unless supported by the company'. This is completely at odds with Wikipedia's policies. The company's own communications are obviously going to be biased towards self interest - so in a controversy section we are going to rely on reliable third party sources, not selfpublished company communiucations. - MrOllie (talk) 15:40, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

spammer redirects

This article is being used in blog spam, suggesting that it is far from neutral.

The URL http://www.leaphish.com/101/ redirects to the main article and is one of the URLs being offered in the blog comments. A google search using the URL as the search term will show the scope of the problem. 122.107.223.64 (talk) 23:19, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on LeapFish. 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: 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) 01:02, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on LeapFish. 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: 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) 09:34, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]