User talk:Lawrencecoburn

Conflict of interest

Please see WP:COI, as well your own comments in this blog post: [1]. As you pointed out, you're clearly biased.--Crossmr 00:44, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fact Checking

Hi,I have no interest in editing the article, though I do believe I could do a pretty good job of making it more neutral than it is currently.

I do have an interest in fact checking - I think it would be unfair to the Wikipedia community to let mis-statements like "44 unique Google mentions" go unchecked. I also have access to a lot of helpful info for this debate in the form of archived press mentions.

That being said, if I am in violation of TOS, I will bow out.

This has really been an eye opening experience for me - hopefully there's no hard feelings.

44 unique google hits is quite apparent from the link I provided. I used the search provided by yourself and followed it through. The Cutoff point is whats considered a "unique" hit. The rest of those hits come from the same sites, just other pages on those sites. The wikipedia community has always relied on unique hits to gauge something like that because its much more reliable, and shows a clearer picture on how many sites really link to/reference/contain a term. As I pointed out, a term being repeated on a forum, especially in a profile can generate thousands or hundreds of thousands of hits for a term and this has been demonstrated on past AfDs.--Crossmr 03:20, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, Crossmr, it's not true. In fact, it's off by a factor of tens of thousands. As a new page gatekeeper, you really need to get a handle on why. You are using the wrong operators to conduct this search accurately. Because 'RateItAll' is a unique name that has no meaning in any language, try doing a search without the quotation marks. Then scroll, by hand, through the hundreds of pages. Or, even better, try Yahoo! Site Explorer. It's a better, more intuitive tool for this kind of thing.--Lawrencecoburn 03:35, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I used your search, without the quotations. Try browsing your own search. While the initial number is 800,000 as soon as you continue to scroll, it cut off at 44 unique hits, I also gave you the link from further on in the search you provided. All that matters is when google cuts it off, that is a long standing tradition on wikipedia.--Crossmr 03:42, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just to make it a little clearer, here is the search on each page, without quotes, page 1 [2], page 2 [3], page 3 [4], page 4 [5], that last page is all that matters on wikipedia in terms of google hits. This is the reason google is used, because it gives a better representation of actual results.--Crossmr 03:44, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's very strange. My results aren't getting cut off at all... Maybe you have some spyware on your machine or something? Check this out... i followed your link, and randomly clicked on the tenth page of results (you can see from the screenshot), and there are tons of unique results:

http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Image:Wiki_serps.jpg

An Automated Message from HagermanBot

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! HagermanBot 02:48, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

File:Wiki serps.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Wiki serps.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Cloudbound (talk) 18:39, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]