Wikipedia

Template:Did you know nominations/Scroogle

< Template:Did you know nominations
The following discussion is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Miyagawa (talk) 11:22, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Scroogle edit

(
)
  • ... that Scroogle founder Daniel Brandt once intentionally sought to be sued by Google?
  • Reviewed: Migratory Sharks MoU
  • Comment: Article was deleted in 2009 via AfD, but has gained notability since. Was undeleted and expanded 5X starting 2/23

Created/expanded by ThaddeusB (talk). Self nom at 03:53, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

  • Expansion and date good, quality good; hook sourced offline, well under 200 and interesting. Aboutmovies (talk) 18:16, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Original hook was removed from the mainpage due to previous encounters with Daniel Brandt. Orlady has suggested the following hooks: Froggerlaura (talk) 23:52, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
  • ALT1 ... that Scroogle ranked among the top 4,000 sites worldwide in web traffic before it was shut down last month?
  • ALT2 ... that in 2007 it was reported that Scroogle was becoming the preferred search engine of Internet civil libertarians?
  • Would running the original hook minus, Brandt's name be satisfactory? (I.E. "... that Scroogle once intentionally sought to be sued by Google?"
I feel this is the most interesting fact. If that isn't good I'm fine with ALT1 or
ALT3: ... that Scroogle, which handled roughly 350,000 search requests a day, was supported entirely by user donations?
A combination of two facts, but both are referenced. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:44, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
I get the impression that the nominator is assuming that everyone reading the hook knows what Scroogle was. I can testify that this is not the case. Accordingly, I think a hook that clearly indicates it was a website or search engine is preferable. --Orlady (talk) 21:02, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
Considering that I'd never heard of Scroogle before I wrote the article, I assure you that I am not making that assumption - I just didn't think the context added anything personally. OIf course something like "... that Internet search tool Scroogle once intentionally sought to be sued by Google?" would also be fine. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:00, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Nice hook, but the article only says "legal action". Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:58, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Well, I believe that ALT1 and ALT2 are interesting and well-supported by sources, but I'm tired of butting heads with nominators who insist on "My way or the highway." I don't find ALT3 particularly interesting, and there continue to be issues with the lawsuit-related hooks. --Orlady (talk) 16:40, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Can you just pick one or propose another one then, please? SilverserenC 18:17, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
  • I proposed two hooks over two weeks ago, as a means of rescuing this item from being discarded completely after it was pulled off the main page. The article nominator doesn't like my hooks. I'm tired of doing favors for nominators who then turn around and complain that my efforts to help them did not fulfill their personal goals. Unless the nominator agrees to one of the alt hooks I suggested, somebody else can approve this one. --Orlady (talk) 19:36, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
  • He already said above that he would be fine with Alt1. SilverserenC 21:30, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Alexa data has changed since the article was written. That's why we should archive. ALT1 not good. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:24, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
  • The Alexa data has changed after it shut down? That seems like an obvious occurrence and doesn't seem like it would affect the Alt1 hook at all (though we should remove the last month part, incorrect now and not necessary). SilverserenC 00:17, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
  • The hook is not verifiable any more, hence why it should have been archived. Maybe the wayback machine has it saved. Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:27, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
  • I see what you mean and, no, it doesn't have that recent of a save. Then there's two other alts to pick or you can suggest a new one. SilverserenC 02:56, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Alt4: ... that internet search tool Scroogle was brought offline several times in 2010 due to Google's deletion of interface pages, though Google stated they were "not specifically targeting Scroogle"?
Proposing another alt. SilverserenC 04:28, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
  • The article says it stopped being supported, not that it was deleted. Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:34, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
  • The ALT2 hook is good. The source is still online. I can't approve it because I suggested it. I don't understand this apparent resistance to using a hook that doesn't somehow mention Google. --Orlady (talk) 15:01, 18 March 2012 (UTC)'
  • Didn't think it was all that interesting, but I agree we should get this moving. ALT2 good to go. Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:26, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
  • No need to assume bad faith people. I merely suggested a fact that was more interested. I never said anything about it being "my way or the highway." Geez. And yes legal action is just an alternate word for being sued. The original source actual uses the word sue, if I remember correctly. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:38, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
  • "Legal action" could be an intervention, or a cease and desist order. Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:53, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
  • I checked, here is the actual source sentence: "The non-profit watchdog, Google-Watch, has published the source code for its alternative search engine, Scroogle, to bait Google into a high-profile and potentially damaging legal battle." As such, I suggest:
ALT5: "... that internet search tool Scroogle once intentionally attempted to elicit a legal response from Google?"
Incidentally ALT4 is supported by the article text, as it uses the word "removed", a synonym for deleted. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:35, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
  • There's a citation error in the references - big red error message. MathewTownsend (talk) 16:41, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
    Hun? No such error shows up on my end. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:35, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Does on mine. Ref 16 [1] "Metz, Cade (2010-11-04), "Scroogle busted again after Google tweak", The Register Harv error: There is no link pointing to this citation." MathewTownsend (talk) 17:48, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
  • I changed it to {{cite news}}, which I believe will fix the problem. ({{citation}} says by default it uses Harvard style references, which is not what was intended and presumably what caused the error.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:01, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Rather than have a drawn out discussion spanning another month, I think we should just go with ALT2 Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:47, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Scroogle&oldid=1223391849"