Talk:The Million Dollar Homepage/Archives/2012

Analysis missing

A central part of what encyclopedias are about is this: helping us understand our world. What's missing here is analysis (and of course I'm not calling for original research contrary to Wikipedia's nature but based on references which have done this) of HOW and WHY this worked despite bazillions of other sites trying to make money failing. Was it just blind luck? Why would an advertiser spend hundreds of dollars on a site no one has heard of when they can spend the same (or LESS) on e.g. google or well known/established sites? What really happened? Did he hype it (e.g. get a friend to pay $200 and work that into his press release as bait to get others to do the same saying "See, some folks are buying!" etc) or what? --71.240.255.227 01:41, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually this is exactly what Wikipedia is not about, it would be original research which has no place here. Mallocks 21:31, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Read the comment again, please. Second sentence, parentheses. Dendre (talk) 10:44, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't think any other websites have done such an analysis, and if they haven't, then any analysis on the part of editors here would strike me as original research. --Jay (Histrion) (talk • contribs) 00:57, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

total income

Is there any reliable source that states the author has earned the million dollars? The article lists no sources and I've so far heard this hoax(?) only from the owner of the million dollar homepage. I've seen him winning a couple tens of thousands on ebay for the last pixels, but nothing else. If no reliable sources are provided, I'll add a chapter that states the fact of not having any facts on his earnings. Kirils 07:11, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Can't see any objections, accepting modifications. Kirils 18:29, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I hope Alex blog about his real revenue from pixels :) Cybertrader8888 14:42, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

It's no hoax.

Furthermore, Alexa and Google links information are never accurate. My website receives 13,000+ unique visitors a month, and its Alexa rank is in the 1,500,000 area. Back when it received a mere 6,000 unique visitors a month, Alexa ranked the site at 350,000 or so.

Explanation? Yes: Alexa is faulty nonsense.

There are literally dozens of sites that link to mine, but according to Google, there are three. How they come up with this information is anyone's guess, but it's all (again) patent nonsense.

I paid for space on Alex' site, and several other people known to me did as well. Right there, you have US$15,000 that I can tell you actually occurred, and for small ads, mind you.

Furthermore, when I placed my small ad on TMDHP, traffic to my site skyrocketed. To this day, I still receive approximately 1,000 visitors a month from the page, with the web logs to prove it.

Wikipedia is hardly a place for accurate and professionally collected information, but the Million Dollar page is anything but a hoax.

I think what most concerns me about your rant is that you use terms like "conned" as if you have hard facts which you've verified by some means (which you have not, and could not, since the site is 100% authentic).

You are openly speculating, with no grounds for a claim at all. I would suggest you stop trying to force into the world what you dearly wish to be the truth. It's childish, and though it would probably make you feel better for not having the ingenuity or cleverness for having come up with something similar, yelling that Alex is a con-artist is nothing more than brazen and unfounded slander. I know it hurts to see people move ahead of us, but to allow such pain to slip into delusional claims of trickery is somewhat disturbing. Juniper berry 18:16, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Juniper berry, Too bad you don't exist. Nevertheless, I got a good laugh out of your statement that "Wikipedia is hardly a place for accurate and professionally collected information" while informing us that this large web banner named the "Million Dollar page is anything but a hoax."TL36 (talk) 23:53, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

knockoff sites

The list of knockoff sites would be much more useful if they linked to the sites themselves, rather than nonexistant articles. I'm guessing none are notable enough for their own articles at this time. Everdred 04:16, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

I'd say the list of knockoff sites would be better without the Wikilinks. None of them are notable, and beyond the concept (which is adequately covered by the primary site) none are actually particularly interesting either. I mean, what's interesting about a site whose main gimmick is to steal some student's idea, usually in the hope of making a fast buck? Any of the Wikilinks that turn blue are almost bound to end up at AfD. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 18:20, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

What you said of course is your POV. FWIW, I'll have to wait and see. -- Perfecto  19:50, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

I have spent some time trawling around and this is what I've found:

• most of the million pixel knockoffs are get-rich-quicks
• there are a lot of them! a list is unlikely to be complete (and pretty much pointless anyway, as beyond the fact of there being several there is nothing more of an encyclopaedic nature)
• many of them have only a few pixels filled in, even ones which have been online for some time
• the signup rate at the original is apparently dropping off, as is traffic at their featured site

in short, this shows every sign of being a fad which is in decline. On my view (yes, my POV) there is nothing encyclopaedic to add beyond the fact of there being several imitators,and that they appear to be enjoying considerably less success. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 21:22, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

If you have sources, not your own observations, saying "that they appear to be enjoying considerably less success," then we have reason to remove these red wikilinks. If no, I say wait some more. -- Perfecto  00:16, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

It depends how you define sources. I visited about 20 "million pixel" knockoffs, and most of them had 95% or more unsold. In at least one case the majority of pixels filled in had been given away as a promo competition. Although this is original research, so is the list! It has the same degree of validity. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 18:35, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

I have a friend who has a successfull two million dollar page and i have seen the way "copy cats" are very bad treated on the page. Guys Google has a search engine and if you search you will see bing is copy cating results.. I suggest adding a section to successfull pages.WikiMan1974 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Unless the other websites become notable, the pure fact that they exist is not enough (see WP:V). For now, we can't list any knock-off sites, sorry. Matthewedwards :  Chat  22:38, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

I guess www.1m4u1m4me.com is a knockoff —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.129.0.50 (talk) 13:02, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

spam template

Does it make sense to have the spam template up, even when there are not currently any spam commercial links on the page? --Allen 05:55, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

No it doesn't. I'll remove it. --CygnusPius 09:55, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

The jump on the bandwagon

It December 2005 (UTC)

If you mail me a check for ten thousand dollars I'll send you my guaranteed proven system. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 22:16, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't think any site will be able to mimic the success of The Million Dollar Homepage simply because the REAL one is the one that is talked about. When you see a CNN article on the million dollar page, this is where you are brought. The other spinoffs dont have that same value because there are countless duplicates, but only one real original page. - Stoph 22:08, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Creator comments on spinoffs

Flattered, but they won't make a million

The latest craze is LinkSpammer

Talk pages should only be used to discuss how to improve their corresponding articles. Please stop trying to use Wikipedia to increase your web traffic. —Keenan Pepper 19:19, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Yup. I obfuscated the spammer's site to make that point. Guy (Help!) 13:24, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Anyway external links from talk pages now carry a rel="nofollow". 131.111.8.98 03:05, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

uhmmm

Pixelotto bombs

So, it's safe to say that PL has not been a success. Can someone mention this in the article? It currently reads as if it's still ongoing; it's been 6 months now and the site is stagnant. 82.163.34.99 16:47, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Indeed nothing has changed at pixelotto for a few months now. Does anyone know if the guy's alright? Hope he is anyway. 87.202.96.218 14:16, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

He's probably slaving away on his next "invention". I hope it's different this time. Personally, I don't think anything will ever match the MDHP. Turns out he used a PR guru for that one. 213.218.229.37 17:00, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Is there any reason to mention it at all? The original site is notable due to its novelty and success, but this just reads like an advert for his latest get-rich-quick scheme. Mdwh 00:20, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

No comments, so I removed - no references, no evidence of notability, and the consensus seems to be not have any links unless directly related to the million dollar homepage. Just because this site is notable doesn't mean that everything Alex Tew does is notable and worth including on Wikipedia. Mdwh (talk) 03:37, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Russian

In Russian Wiki: Milliondollarhomepage.com --80.82.47.234 09:27, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

MDHP's popularity due to "Digg Effect?"

I don't know if this accurate or not but according to this artcle on devshed.com MDHP received much of its traffic from Digg and subsequently Alexa (when digg traffic landed it on the movers and shakers list). Should this be mentioned in the article?

Let's remove the links from Copycat sites section

In the Copycat sites, there are some sites listed as an example of these copycats. I don't think this is necessary and it's probably an attempt to advertise a project. What do you think? Northern 02:58, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

• There are no external links in the "Copycat sites" section in the current version, [1]. If you see any, just remove them on sight -- this is spam. 131.111.8.97 20:01, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Pixelotto

In December 2006, Alex Tew launched a similar site called Pixelotto. Pixels on Pixelotto were $2 rather than $1 USD. The winning contestant, due to be determined on the 5 January 2008, was meant to win $153,000 of the prize money. However, the Pixelotto homepage has been replaced with the message "The winner will be announced here shortly!" and a winner has yet to be announced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Remonx

Wikipedia administrator JzG bribed by Alex Tew

I have reason to believe Wikipedia administrator JzG has been bribed by Alex Tew (in an attempt) to remove all references to Alex Tew, Pixelotto and The Million Dollar Homepage from Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Remonx (talk • contribs) 15:35, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

• Hilarious! Guy (Help!) 16:54, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Sadly I have to to say that JzG doesn't take monetary bribes. _→AzaToth 16:56, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Hey, maybe I would if the price was high enough - nobody's tried! Don't cut off a potential source of filthy lucre without giving me the chance to review it :o) Guy (Help!) 16:57, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Cleanup

I've changed the article around a bit, and hope I haven't stepped on too many toes in the process. The reference to pixelotto.com was unsourced so the link to this website really is required if you think that pixelotto is worth mentioning at all. (For the record, I think it is noteworthy).

The external links section has gone altogether; the website itself is now linked from the infobox, and the blog is provided as a reference for the "origins & development" section (replacing the Times news article reference, which was most likely sourced from Tew's blog in any case). -- Sakurambo 桜ん坊 10:56, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:The Million Dollar Homepage/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Hi! I'll be reviewing this article over the next few days. -Drilnoth (talk) 03:02, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   File:The Million Dollar Homepage.png needs a fair-use rationale. It already has a copyright tag, but a specific fair-use rationale for its use in this article is needed. Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline has guidelines on how these should be structured and what they need to contain

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   I'm putting this review on hold for seven days to allow a fair-use rationale to be added. Also, at least one external link in the article deadlinks and should be fixed (see [2]). I'll be watching this page, so when you're done with those you can either leave me a note here or on my talk page and I'll take a look. Otherwise, everything looks great! -Drilnoth (talk) 17:16, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks for reviewing. I have updated the image to how it is today, and added a fair use rationale. As for the deadlink, the deadlink checker says that [3] is dead, but when I click on it I have no problem seeing it. Before I take this to WP:FAC, do you have any other suggestions for the page? Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 00:04, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Okay; I wouldn't worry about the link then. Anyway, thanks for updating the image rationale; I'll be passing this.
    As to an FAC, I would highly recommend one; I was really impressed by the article, and would support it in an FAR. -Drilnoth (talk) 00:15, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Points of clarification in the article may be needed

• It says current status inactive, i'm guessing this is because you can't buy any more ads but the site is up and active in that sense.
• In the main body of text it says registration cost £50 but in the text box it says 50 euros or so, whilst not categorically contradictory its still a bit inconsistent. Tom B (talk) 12:01, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Million penny / hummer

These are not really relevant. We have noted that there are copycats, trawl the internet and you can find references for any number of copycats and you won't even have to reference WHOIS via GoDaddy for some of them. As with all disputed content, the onus is on those who support it to achieve consensus and demonstrate that it meets policy. In this case I would say it gives WP:UNDUE weight to a few out of many thousands of knock-offs. Guy (Help!) 17:16, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Fine. They were referenced using secondary sources from WSJ, but I can see I'm fighting a losing battle. BTW, no one during the GAN or FAC process has brought this up, but whatever. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 18:09, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

It's not your fault, the article has been subject of promotion for so long (since before you even registered) that a lot of us are sceptical in the extreme about any individual knock-off being mentioned. Guy (Help!) 22:28, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

To Matthewedwards: please don't take this in a negative attitude. The fact that irrelevant and inappropriate things are taken out of this article actually improves the article, keeping it concise and relevant. This article is, after all, about a particular (notable) website, and the fact that it is kept clean of all the spam is a good thing. -- Ekjon Lok (talk) 21:24, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Followup section needed

A followup section is needed. Has the guy gone to business school? Has he paid for his tuition and living expenses with the money? The article stops in 2006 - what has happened since? Tempshill (talk) 02:56, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm inclined to say no. There hasn't been much followup in the media. I recall watching an interview with him that took place a couple of years after the website, at http://uk.intruders.tv/Moo-party-special-Alex-Tew-of-MillionDollarHomepage-com_a111.html, but from what I recall he seemed a bit drunk. Wouldn't that information be better on the Alex Tew article anyway (currently redirects to this page)? This is about the website? I don't know of any other articles about companies that say what the owner/creator does with the money he earns from it. Matthewedwards :  Chat  19:34, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

The article read to me like it was an important part of his pitch that he intended to fund his education. If this was all a matter of hoodwinking a gullible public then it's an important part of the story of the website. I have no idea whether any hoodwinking was involved, this front page FA is the first I've heard of this webpage. Tempshill (talk) 23:41, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I couldn't say either way. Just because we haven't heard, doesn't mean he hoodwinked anyone. Besides, those who did pay for the space are reportedly happy with the traffic they got from the links. (Or they were at the time, I assume it's tapered off quite a bit in the last four years.) For all intents and purposes, the project is done with and was three-and-a-half years ago. It will stay online for another 14 months and then it's gone. I don't expect to see any report on Tew and what he's done since, but it could happen. Right now, everything that can be verified is. If some new information is published by a reliable secondary source, I or one of the others who take care of this article will endeavour to add it. Matthewedwards :  Chat  23:56, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

To be clear, I'm not alleging that anyone was hoodwinked, unhappy, or happy — just noting that a followup section is needed. Tempshill (talk) 17:05, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Lesson?

Now that businesses understand that they don't need to provide content to win ad revenue, do you suppose that all the free sites on the Internet will shut down? Wnt (talk) 14:31, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I can't agree with this. This seems wrong to me. When you sell something, you should sell something that has real value. Making markets out of thin air is what got us into recession: for every transaction there should be a pre-existent reason that is well understood. We need to turn away from this kind of thinking, and think like adults, not 21 year old kids who think money grows on trees. Tcaudilllg (talk) 16:43, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Some lamer put up a website and now he's on the MW main page. Dude should have been smart and started a new one when his bio hit FA status. Free advertising! --65.127.188.10 (talk) 18:12, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

This article might be well written, but what is the relevance of that for anyone? We don't even know if its education benefited from the fund raising. Hell, even the creator doesn't have a page on him! This is a bad choice for an FA article.Daniel de França (talk) 20:32, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

At one point, an article existed on him, but it was redirected. Articles are usually not created for people notable for only one event. He did other things, but notability is not inherited. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:02, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

[4] <-- is the only interview I'm aware of with Tew that occurred months after the final pixels were sold. I don't know if he went to university; I think he had a number of job offers from web developers, but I don't know if any panned out. I do know that he started pixelotto.com, and someone told me today that he founded sockandawe.com, which also received a fair bit of attention in the media. I'm going to spend a few hours reading those articles cause they may contain something of value for this article. You must remember though, that this article is about the Million $ Homepage website, and not Tew. Matthewedwards :  Chat  22:50, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Looks more like a glitch.Stick2012 (talk) 03:25, 15 June 2009 (UTC)