Talk:Questia Online Library/Archive 1

Archive 1

Notability

Questia, to me is the best source of journal and research studies that can be found presently in the field of Psychology. These books, journals and articles are not part of the popular psychology periodicals:Psychology Today,or American Psychologist, that offer subscriptions. When someone is researching a topic, the person has to do some detective work to find the best book or article, for his/her paper. This helps the student/researcher in my opinion.In may,2010 Questia was purchased by another company. I certainly hope all of the best attributes of Questia remain the same. It would be difficult to find anything quite as good. 99.103.209.17 (talk) 14:17, 29 August 2010 (UTC)Mary Bender

I'm not positive this article should be speedied, but I have a strong suspicion, because 68.89.167.97 (talk · contribs) has been going around Wikipedia adding links to their commercial website, and also editing this article. Also I don't think this company is notable in any way. --Malathion 10:05, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

The company is extremely notable, actually. They have an exceptional collection of books, and unlike the non-notable sites, they're not public domain texts. Instead, they have purchased copyright licenses to innumerable scholarly works. This allows them to provide research services. The reason you might not have heard of them is that they're pretty exclusively scholarly and they do not allow subscriptions by libraries or corporations. Many university libraries will recommend Questia for their scholars to use at home. The text of this article isn't very advertising, either, so far as I can tell. Finally, though, advertising is not a criterion for speedy deletion at this time, though it is a criterion for deletion via Votes for Deletion (wp:vfd). I will remove the speedy tag. You believe that it's an ad, then please do add it to VfD. Geogre 17:47, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

i use questia everyday. i study puritan amercian literature and i live in algeria (north africa).very few books are available in our libraries and mainly in french. so questia saves my life. i found many books.as a comparison, i wanted to buy on amazon 3 books that would have cost 150 usd! with questia 20 usd per month.i can read and take quotes from hundred of intersting books.Djamila

I was thinking paying to use the service, and was wondering if other wikipedias use it for their article development. And, how do they keep a paying subscriber from sharing their log-in with others? Seems to me, only one person has to pay, and friends and family get to use it? Just curious.Giovanni33 01:51, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I've used Questia for over a year and highly recommend it. I do not have easy access to a research library---but even if I lived onb a campus I would be using this very convenient resource. Rjensen 02:15, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I guess I will have to treat myself to this resource very soon!Giovanni33 02:16, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

(prior discussion filed in this section Matt Whyndham 16:41, 26 September 2007 (UTC))

Neutrality

Assuming that the Questia service is notable, the article should be neutral. The present text reads like it was pulled straight from the service's own publicity. How does it compare, technically and in terms of resource quality and breadth, to other models of aggregated academic resources, e.g. Intute ? Matt Whyndham 16:40, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

There are no outlandish claims, just straight facts. Questia has far more text that Intute, which is basically a card catalog. It has maybe 20x as many books as the ACLS ebooks (which is subscription based). Rjensen 00:17, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I have no dispute with their service other than the fact that they retain your credit card number and automatically renew your subscription until you cancel. My daughter was required to join for a semester at a local college and I let her use my credit card to subscribe and when I saw it rebilled I called and canceled but they would not refund the subscription. My fault for not reading the agreement but I thought someone might like to know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.56.222.6 (talk) 02:38, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Edits by Cengage IP

Recently an IP address registered to Cengage edited the page in a good faith attempt to update it. However, I reverted it because it still came across promotional. The user contacted me on my talk page here, after which I edited the page to reflect the updated information in a less promotional tone. I had to use primary, non-independent sources, but I have only written plain facts, without, I hope, promotional language. I ask other editors to review and refine, if they think it necessary. Thanks, BethNaught (talk) 20:44, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Questia Online Library. 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 http://web.archive.org/web/20100426002917/http://blog.gale.com:80/pressroom/corporate-news/gale-acquires-questia/ to http://blog.gale.com/pressroom/corporate-news/gale-acquires-questia/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 23:47, 20 July 2016 (UTC)