Talk:Yahoo! Voices

Who is editing this page and do they work for Associated Content???

I see that what little was worthwhile in the article -- and I mean "little" as anything approaching anything substantive other than the advertisement for Associated Content that this is has been removed -- is no longer there (the riff on the Russian proleterian theme). WHAT POSSIBLY GOOD DOES IT DO TO PARSE THIS ARTICLE DOWN TO NOTHING BUT AN AD, OTHER THAN IT SERVING AS AN ADVERTISEMENT FOR ASSOCIATED CONENT?

This is one of the more shameful episodes on Wikipedia, in my opinion. Whoever has responsibility or this page should be removed. Potbelly & Ruth (talk) 04:33, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Dude, chill out. Did you look at the revision history? It was 6 times more of an advertisement until someone came along and cut the crud and cruft out. "Associated Content (AC) is an online publisher and distributor of user generated content. Associated Content enables anyone with Internet access to publish their content on any topic and then distributes that content through its website and content partners." - sounds pretty encyclopedic to me. Kopf1988 (talk) 18:42, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Ad/copyvio?

The article reads as an advertisement for the firm and the writing reads very similarly to what I read upon the firm's Web site. However, with so many folks engaged with the firm and its site in various ways I believe the firm should remain upon Wikipedia.68.13.191.153 18:30, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I concur, although I write for them, so my opinion is very biased. It does read a little like an advert, but probably nothing I won't be able to fix... after I finish the few articles I'm working on *deep sigh* Kopf1988 03:59, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I found this article extremely helpful, even in its current state. The few articles I just tripped over on that site were extremely shillatory. Having read about the payment model, I now understand why. It's the old saw that the guy owning the newspaper doesn't tell the editor what to write (media independence), but if the editor doesn't figure it out for him/her-self the editor is soon replaced by someone else less enthusiastic about spending more time with their family. MaxEnt 03:09, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

The article reads like an advertisement as useful information previously included in the article was wiped as "original research." Imagine that -- one wouldn't want original research in an encyclopedia, would one? Why "original research" was censored, go figure. Associated Content is geared towards creating spam as an advertising platform. Isn't that what wikipedia originally was about?Claude Alexander, The Esso Man (talk) 04:00, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

One wouldn't want original research in an encyclopedia. WP:NOR There really also shouldn't be any opinion shown in the argument, and can be shown by many recent reverts. Things have been reverted like "Associated Content is highly realistic... CPs are dedicated to producing quality work to high personal standards." All point of view, advertising for the website. Kopf1988 (talk) 01:36, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

One wouldn't want original research in an encyclopedia? How do you think the Encyclopedia Britannica and other encyclopedias were created? Claude Alexander, The Esso Man (talk) 18:47, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

A perusal of Associated Content shows that the "Content Managers" are not concerned about quality control, as many "Content Producers" Complain about never hearing from the Managers, who ostensibly are in charge of quality control. They refuse to delete or amend articles with errors.

Errors seem to be widespread due to software issues, i.e. incompatibility with Word.

Most articles seem to be 2 "pages" long which indicates that the buzz that Associated Content is basically a producer of "Spam", i.e., a platform for Google Adsense ads, may be true.

Why this isn't in the body of the article, or has been taken out, surprises me.Won't You Come Home Bill Bailey? (talk) 03:48, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

It's not there because no reputable news story has written about it. Even though it's very true, it's still original research. Oh, and by the way, they've made MANY corrections for me in the past. And yes, AC is all about the Adsense, but still, so is pretty much everything new on Web 2.0. Have you seen MySpace lately? Kopf1988 (talk) 06:18, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Payment?

Is the payment of 3$ for real? Is it really per article? What keeps a person from spending a Saturday earning 24$ by just writing articles? Gautam ^Discuss 17:54, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I write for Associated Content.com, and I can say that the $3 payment is indeed very real, although you can earn more per article depending on how well the article you submit will align with advertising, your keyword density, and your track record for bringing in pageviews. Also, not every article will be approved for payment. (I've submitted approximately 250 articles and had about 30 rejections. I said all of that to say this: While anyone over the age of 18 in the US is free to join AC and submit content, its not as simple as simply following the writing process we all learn in Elementary school. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.215.167.182 (talk) 18:20, August 23, 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, it's $3 for real, but not for just -anything-. Op/Ed articles, for example, can get declined, or other topics that have very short life span. Most stuff gets approved... if you're 10th grade language teacher would give you a C on a full-page(450ish words) paper, odds are AC would give you about $3-$5 for it. Kopf1988 03:19, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

The truth seems to be that there are "Content Producers" that are "Content Managers," though thy do not bill themselves as such. Content Managers are anonymou, but there are Content Producers who comment on practical all complaints, rants, etc. They also are apologists for such Associated Content quirks as no quality control and no feedback (overt) from Conent Managers. As for pay, there seems to be lists of subjects available at up to $25 per article, but the articles are always gone. Most likely to these Content Managers that pose as Content Producers -- that would be my guess. There will be some Content Producers who will have five articles in a row featured. It seems to be a closed system of insiders, but one would be able to make anywwhere from $25-$100 per month if one is dedicated and is able to accept enough "calls." That's about what I made with no favoritism. It is what it is, no more.Claude Alexander, The Esso Man (talk) 18:47, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Recent Changes 12/11/07

Unfortunately I have reverted a large portion of the recent changes made, due to information that very clearly needs to be attributed, is original research, or has some sort of general opinion overall. "CPs take it upon themselves to produce high quality work and behave ethically" is one such example, which is clearly not a neutral point of view. Information about the front page articles being short and complains about CMs also are in need of sourcing, etc. I didn't just use a tag because the information does not yet have a credible source - I've looked into it. Articles from the site can't be used as such. Kopf1988 (talk) 04:05, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

The changes I unchanged were reverted by this user. If anyone has comments, or wants to find sources/remove the hype parts please do for me. Like this paragraph: "The community of Content Producers is very active and lively, and offers CPs new and old a great deal of support, including tips and feedback. Despite the focus on money, CPs are dedicated to producing quality work to high personal standards. Plagiarism is not tolerated by the site, which naturally has the support of the CP community as they are writers of original content, and a feeling of camraderie is encouraged." Nothing but good things about the website, with no reliable sources of any kind. And to be honest I write for, and like to write for AC, but I like my wikipedia articles to have a neutral viewpoint ^_^. Kopf1988 (talk) 20:51, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I've taken a bit of a knife to the article - as well as the hype there were unsubstantiated criticisms. It seems that the site has very little in terms of reliable sources to build anything off. I doubt the article ought to get much larger unless we can find some better independent sources. With current sources it's not possible to produce anything much beyond its current state that would fit within our guidelines and policies. -- SiobhanHansa 17:49, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Good work, although I would say it is notable. Kopf1988 (talk) 23:21, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I didn't throw the notability tag on. It seems a bit like blogger.com to me - the company is notable because it is used by so many people, but the individual content not so much. I expect a few refs from less small town press sources will satisfy User:Bearian. I'll see what I can drum up. -- SiobhanHansa 00:43, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I've added in a couple and removed the notability tag. I'm not 100% on how valid the criticism regarding Tim Armstrong is - to be honest the article reads like the negative comments are just from a bunch of SEO's whining because it's not them. But it did get coverage in USAToday. -- SiobhanHansa 01:25, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Spam filter

This website is currently blacklisted on the spam filter; I don't understand why. Chubbles (talk) 13:25, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

There was discussion of it somewhere. I really don't know why it wasn't mentioned HERE of all places. Kopf1988 (talk) 15:10, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

A summary of the conversations can be found here (at least until it gets archived). It wouldn't have hurt to mention it here I suppose - but the discussion was about editors spamming links to other articles and the inappropriateness of those links as sources on Wikipedia. It wasn't about the content of this article, which is what this page is really for so I don't think most editors would have thought to bring it up here.

I've put in a request to have the appropriate links whitelisted so they don't block editing here. In the meantime I have commented out the direct links so that we don't block editing while the whitelisting process rolls through.

If other editors have links needed for verification on this article please make a request at the whitelist for the particular link you need - if you need assistance leave a note here and I'll try and help. -- SiobhanHansa 16:30, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Update: The home page, http://www.associatedcontent.com/index.html, and the faq, http://www.associatedcontent.com/faq.html, (which allows any anchor on the FAQ to be used) have been whitelisted. All other sources from the site will need a separate whitelist request. -- SiobhanHansa 17:48, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Then it is still blacklisted. I added that to the article itself as it seems relevant: That the material on the site is being treated like dreck, dross, that is, essentially worthless. What an indictment of the whole project!Shemp Howard, Jr. (talk) 07:19, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Associated Content links

• Have no editorial oversight (see WP:RS) and articles are essentially self-published
• Offers its authors financial incentives to increase page views
• Fails Wikipedia's core content policies:

• ”Verifiability”
  • ” Questionable_sources”
  • "Verifiable Reliable Sources"
  • ”Self-published sources (online and paper)”
• ”Reliable sources”
  • ”Self-published sources”

Hope that helps clears up the policy issues--Hu12 (talk) 19:41, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

One of those isn't 100% correct. There is editorial oversight over a person's first three articles, but after that no oversight. (Similar to ezarticles I bet.) Not that that is very helpful. Kopf1988 (talk) 02:34, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

New Picture?

AC recently revamped their whole website and have a new look. I believe a new screenshot is needed on this article. Zoodly (talk) 16:21, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I uploaded a picture here:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Associated_Content_home_page_screenshot.JPG

but I don't know how or whether I can add it to this page. I'm still new to Wiki.

Zoodly (talk) 23:41, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Criticism Please?

I have caught a little bit of criticism of the site in odd places, but didn't pay too much attention to it. And after publishing four articles with upfront payment, the first for $5.41 and each later one for less than the previous ones, I'm curious to know if there's info that I should know about this site (e.g., do they pay over $5 to hook you and then pay less and less until you're accepting $2 per article?). So I came here. But I find no criticism, no links to any criticism... and three of the six sources cited are AC FAQ pages, and a fourth is an interview with their founder.

So I have to question... is this article simply not developed enough to include a rounded view of the site? Or has the negative stuff been deleted? Are there any reputable sources out there that are critical of AC, and if so, why aren't they cited here? Wikipedia is known for citing criticisms where they exist, and I would certainly like to know if it's out there... or must I go elsewhere to find this out? Kilyle (talk) 13:22, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Yahoo! Voices

Now that this product is no longer named Associated Content should this wiki article be moved? Ottawahitech (talk) 21:02, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

I'll propose the move. --82.170.113.123 (talk) 21:40, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was moved. --BDD (talk) 17:23, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Associated Content → Yahoo! Voices – In 2010, Yahoo! purchased Associated Content and the division was renamed to Yahoo! Voices. Relisted. BDD (talk) 18:50, 30 August 2013 (UTC) 82.170.113.123 (talk) 21:40, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose: Introduction says "Yahoo announced a major shakeup involving the introduction of a new service, Yahoo! Voices, which would replace the Associated Content site and take on the bulk of its content, while some 75,000 items would be retired under the new site's more stringent content"...that's a lot of changes. It makes seems to more sense to have two separate articles, following precedents such as the Oracle Corporation acquisition of Sun Microsystems and the Microsoft acquisition of Skype Technologies, etc. 67.100.127.107 (talk) 19:29, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support - so intertwined it doesn't seem a good case for WP:FORK. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:07, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support per above. It has been renamed to "Yahoo! Voices" now. Mediran (t • c) 06:23, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support one coherent narrative instead of two. Nowhere near as much stuff to say as in Sun or Skype. Over time the old name will presumably be less and less common, so the "common name" provision also applies. W Nowicki (talk) 17:40, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Any way to automate marking dead links?

Since voices.yahoo.com is longer around, tons of Wikipedia articles which used it as a reference have dead links. Is there any way to automate marking the dead links? Gmporr (talk) 18:35, 15 February 2015 (UTC)