Talk:Answers.com

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Comments[edit]

deleted statement about notorority as language was not impartial or disinterested and and supporting citation does not link. adding statement that wikipedia is among its sources. ( bit of an understatement) would like to included a statement about possibility of answers.com breaching a copyright if it fails to discriminate when harvesting wikipedia et al articles that may be contain non commerial use only inserts. but would like a citation. rather than a suposition. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.32.20.142 (talk) 02:22, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mention of contextual lookup?[edit]

Contextual lookup technology is at the heart of a recent suit against Babylon/Formula, suggesting it might be worth mentioning in the description of how the software. +sj + 06:44, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright[edit]

Does anybody else feel that there is something wrong with Answers.com profitting from content they have not written? Can anybody explain why this is allowed or does Wiki get a donation ? Stamford spiney 12:58, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Try reading Gratis versus Libre#Free as in beer versus free as in speech --Henrygb 13:58, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This does not answer my question. There is also the fact that Answers takes a snapshot of Wikipedia, and the entry I looked at had errors. Stamford spiney 15:19, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let me try to answer your question better than Henrygb. If Answers.com is not adding value, it won't get hits, ad revenue will decline and it will go bust. If it adds value, by compressing content from various sources and outscoring Wiki on Google, users will tolerate the ads and it will profit accordingly. If entries have errors, as you suggest, users will come to see this and punish the site with fewer hits. The cream rises to the top, in that teachers the world over are pushing Wiki, not Answers.com, for the very reasons you suggest. Even if you think Answers.com entire business model depends on sneaking up the Google rankings, remember Google stands to lose by promoting weak content and can be punished by users just as quickly. In short, (market failure resulting from) market power is only a problem where barriers to entry are sufficiently high, as they are generally not on the internet. Wiki has nothing to fear from Answers.com. In any event, Henrygb is right in that this entire discussion has no place in the article until we can show its taking place outside our community. Ribbit 11:43, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, there is something wrong with Answers.com. It's violating copyrights because it is a commercial company. Wikipedia is able to use some resources because it is a non-profit. For example, images of the European Space Agency can only be used for non-commercial reasons. See their policy.[1] But Answers.com uses wikipedia pages indiscriminately for commercial reasons. They have a picture here that wikipedia was able to use but which they are using illegally as far I can tell. Sounds like liability to me.--Cdogsimmons 01:04, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suspicious?[edit]

When one sees the mirror of this article on Answers.com, it omits the following phrase: Its content appears to be primarily a mirror of Wikipedia's. Interesting? It proves that Answers.com does edit articles to suit their own fancy. –- kungming·2 | (Talk·Contact) 22:17, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No - it just means that they do not have the 19 June anon edit. This is common with mirrors. Nor is the statement clearly true. Look at http://www.answers.com/be or http://www.answers.com/sickness as examples --Henrygb 22:32, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thanks. I had no idea that the edit was so recent. –- kungming·2 | (Talk·Contact) 01:00, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Answers.com reminds me so much of ebaumsworld.com: Taking other people's content and then filling the pages with ads. At least these guys credit the sources though.
Yea your right, it is the ebaum of Wikipedia. Though, I don't think just because they credit the sources makes it all okay. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.175.63.11 (talk) 03:09, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Does Answers.com have some sources from wikipedia?[edit]

Well I was the one who added info on this article claiming that answers.com does take information from wikipedia. When you see the info on the article in answers.com it has the the heading wikipedia and then information but this doesn't exist in all articles. Some articles are purely answers.com and some are just having a part of source from both. Visit this article and you will see what I mean, http://www.answers.com/starcraft. It has at the top, Wikipedia. Am I right or am I wrong?

To conclude I see no reason to remove the section I put as when looking at the answers.com database. It at the top, Wikipedia. Which means they want to interpret this as wikipedia source information so I will add the source back.

Why did some put on the external link section the same page but in answers.com[edit]

That article does not have any information from wikipedia. No reason to post it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pendotigers (talk • contribs).

If you really think http://www.answers.com/Answers.com#Wikipedia has nothing from this article, you might try comparing them. It shows in a neat ironic way how Answers.com uses Wikipedia without having to spend paragraphs explaining it. --Henrygb 09:18, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How do you know about the technology section of this article[edit]

Isn't it in HTML?

I'm not sure how the contributor knew for sure, but it is not pure HTML. When you request a page from Answers, it searches its multiple databases for matches, then assembles the page for you. Actually, Wikipedia does the same thing to. -- Zanimum 14:14, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Revenue[edit]

In what ways answers.com gets its revenue? I guess it is from ads. Any other ways? I personally dont see any adds on the pages so I dont know :P--Anupam Srivastava 09:38, 26 July 2006 (UTC) I am adding a line for using ads in the Revenue section.--Anupam Srivastava 09:39, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Editing[edit]

Can you edit articles on answers.com ?--Always Gotta Keep it Real, Cute 1 4 u 04:17, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No. The only way to edit Wikipedia articles is on Wikipedia. Answers uses archived versions of Wikipedia, anywhere from a week to three months old. -- Zanimum 14:07, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comparing Sophie Blake[edit]

I might not be the first one to notice that but I haven't yet found an answer: The Sophie Blake article here at Wikipedia says that it "does not cite its references or sources". Further down, however, it says it "was taken from www.answers.com http://www.answers.com/topic/sophie-blake ". If you follow the link, Answers.com will tell you exactly the same. What's going on here? <KF> 23:50, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's probably someone messing about. i'll try to tidy the WP version up a bit, which will affect the answers.com version (and make it less weird) when they next pull the db. Chris Cunningham 09:26, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! <KF> 21:58, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

blufr[edit]

Is Blufr.com a relevant external link or not? Sure its "powered" by answers.com, but if thats the case, wouldn't we need links for the sites "powered" by geocities? I move the link be removed - any opinions? Gohst 11:42, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think the link should be removed because blufr is not merely "powered by" but is rather a product created by the company and also appears embedded on its homepage. They are vitally connected and so adding it as a link seems fair and perhaps not even enough.

I do not see any relevance between blufr and a page about Answers.Com. The site does not give any obvious information about either Answers.Com, or the topics generally raised in the original article. You might as well add a link to every company owned by GM on the GM Wiki page. I would say remove it, since the content is not relevant to the article. 72.161.163.15 15:23, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Donations[edit]

Someone asked an interesting question, which didn't get answered. Does answers.com donate to Wikipedia, and if so how much? I appreciate that Wikipedia has nothing to lose from answer.com's use of its articles, but on the other hand, answers.com benefits enormously from Wikipedia's free content. So it would seem to me grossly unfair if it didn't contribute financially. Palefire 08:05, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree71.74.70.152 03:31, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cross-referencing and using Answers.com info[edit]

We should compare Wikipedia articles to their Answers.com counterparts and should add the additional information on Wikipedia. That way, articles can be made bigger and better with information from many sources. Of course, we have to note the references. --128.6.30.214 14:51, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question[edit]

Why does the site copy Wikipedia's work? Does it have Wikipedia's permission? After all, copyrighted work should not be copied without the author's permission!

See the GFDL --Henrygb 15:27, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

However, Answers.com does violate some copyrights. See above.--Cdogsimmons 01:06, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How often does Answer.com update itself from Wikipedia?[edit]

The copies of Wikipedia articles on Answers.com are usually missing the latest updates. So how often does Answers.com update itself from Wikipedia? Is it the same for every article or are some articles updated more often than others? 218.215.130.26 03:52, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've determined that Answer.com's version of 'list of fantasy films' was last updated on 2 April 2007. Can someone check if it's the same for other articles. 218.215.130.26 10:13, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have the same question, the article discusses Answers as a Wikipedia mirror but many of the articles are way out of date. When do they update? Enigma3542002 21:46, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • They were updating bimonthly (with some articles updated as needed), but they haven't updated since July 9. I've written and written and written about it, but I haven't gotten a repsonse since October 3, despite their claim that "We do our best to respond in a timely manner. You can expect a response ... within the next few days". The last time they actually responded, they said it would be "when we are ready to do so". Needless to say, I'm still waiting.SPNic 19:55, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More Questions than Answers![edit]

So many good questions raised here and, unfortunately, so few answers.

Ironic for an entry on answers.com ! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eitz Chayim (talk • contribs) 11:37, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. What their sources are apart from WP might be listed in the article. The dictionary definitions, I wondered if they were from Wiktionary, but now I'm not sure. I just looked up rip-off: "n. Slang. 1. A product or service that is overpriced or of poor quality. 2. Something, such as a film or story, that is clearly imitative of or based on something else. 3. A theft.4. An act of exploitation."
Funnily enough that isn't the same as the Wiktionary page. Hakluyt bean (talk) 23:05, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

not —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.68.136.159 (talk) 21:08, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Google's "[definition]" function[edit]

When you google a common word, [definition] will appear near the results number area. It links directly to Answers.com with the definition of the googled word.

Something to perhaps include in this wiki. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.172.250.58 (talk) 19:18, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

what are the causes of teenage pregnancy —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.210.31.183 (talk) 19:50, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Does answers.com have a search box?[edit]

Silly question, I know, but I cannot find a search box on the home page. XOttawahitech (talk) 03:42, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is Answers.com a reliable souce?[edit]

Answers.com seems to be a weak knock off of Wikipedia, so I assume that its articles are not citable sources for Wiki articles? Ditto for About.com--Smokefoot (talk) 19:24, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Answers.com not a website but virtually computer sabotage[edit]

The information offered on answers.com is always very tantalizing and creates intense curiosity, but since no average computer or network provider will allow person to read it in a timely matter, I have decided to always avoid it as I am tired of it freezing my computer. If everyone one stays away maybe they will get the message and reduce the number of ads- or better yet, disappear. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.69.163.57 (talk) 21:44, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Answers.com. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:38, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Answers.com. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

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

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:05, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This Article does Not meet Wiki guidelines[edit]

One has to wonder if corporate authors (or answers.com's bankruptcy lawyers or bean counters) were at work here to produce such a dry, bland article—that also does not fit suggested Wikipedia format. For example Wikipedia guidelines require that the lead section include any controversy and issues of interest. Yet neither bankruptcy nor (the likely related) user-problems and high frustration levels at answers.com are mentioned in the intro section. Another example is that the entire body of the article consists of the so-called History section, —but that reads more like a newspaper's brief timeline or the tic-tock of an event—than a good history.

From my terrible experience there in the past 48 HRS, it is my opinion that answers.com is treating it's users so poorly that answers.com is "eating their seed corn." Hence; one more reason for their Chapter 11.

Here are some excerpts/examples I found of others having similar feelings and problems to my own : 

Answers.com Reviews - 180 Reviews of Answers.com 
180 Reviews From Our Community
5 stars: 7,          1 star: 167 

“ADS ARE HORRENDOUS”   4/19/17 
I counted. There were 5 ads without me not even having to scroll down. This does NOT include the 4 that popped up in an ad that blocked the entire screen! Awful! When I finally clicked out of the screen, it wasn't even the right question displayed!

“STUPID CLICKBAIT SUPER SLOW+ANNOYING”
1/15/17  Exacly what the title says.…  

“I've never rated anything online thats how much i hate this”
12/15/16 …15 slides to get one definition.

...All from https://www.sitejabber.com/reviews/www.answers.com

I had to press the Back-key 60 times to escape the next "explanation," which is actually the textual merger of several unrelated "explanations" about things that are also slow, such as panda bears: 

Why is Answers.com so slow
... Why is answers.com such a slow website?
http://www.answers.com/Q/Why_is_Answers.com_so_slow?

It doesn't seem like the main complaint is "too many ads." Once they delivered, now they don't. People seem to feel ripped off. 

"answers.com is literally the worst designed site I've ever seen" 
www.reddit.com:  3 years ago: 
This what happens when you get a website that gets reasonably high results on Google search, and tries to capitalize on it by putting click bait everywhere, resulting in over saturation with ads and a generally terrible experience.
https://www.reddit.com/r/CrappyDesign/comments/28sj63/answerscom_is_literally_the_worst_designed_site/

To leave out the user experience would be sugarcoating it, and unfair. These are interesting facts and opinions, crucial to the success of any web site or business, and would add depth to the article and should be worked in. I don't see how that depth and power can be conveyed without using several quotations. Guidelines say: Wikipedia does not like bland and boring. (I would "just do it" myself, but my computer is crippled right now.)

--2602:306:CFCE:1EE0:3030:563:EC47:440B (talk) 17:06, 3 July 2017 (UTC)Doug Bashford[reply]


I came across the 2nd to last post before mine, through a Google search, and the reddit post helps explain why this website is no longer as popular as it once was, 8-10 years. Thanks for the link. Zykodern (talk) 23:41, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Answers.com. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 00:29, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Answers.com. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 05:10, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WikiAnswers abandons wiki format[edit]

I received this email today from WikiAnswers:

Dear Answers super-user,

Thank you for your years of passion, support, and contributions that have made Answers.com a great resource for knowledge-lovers everywhere. Since its launch, Answers.com has provided a space for users around the globe to discover, create and share exceptional content. Your volunteered commitment to this mission has created its most valuable resource: the collective wisdom and experiences of a large and diverse community, and the publication of rich, relevant, and trusted questions and answers in a multitude of categories. We cannot be more grateful to you.

Due to various factors including data privacy, costs of keeping the user profile system functional, efforts required to continuously patrol user-generated content, and a decision to focus more resources on growing other lines of business, we are announcing today that Answers.com will no longer be operating in an editable format. Effective today, this means that all user profiles and logins will be deleted, and while the site will remain readable, the ability to answer and edit questions will be no longer be publicly available.

This change will have no impact on the accessibility of Answers.com and its millions of questions and answers, which will remain active and available for users to enjoy.

Your involvement in the Answers.com community has helped hundreds of millions of readers, and we cannot thank you enough for your years of commitment. We will continue to manage the legacy you helped build.

Sincerely,

Chris Hawkins Vice President, Business Operations

2606:A000:8702:2100:382C:7C5F:5338:5200 (talk) 22:23, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reception[edit]

The current article appears to lack a reception section. I recently saw someone link at [2] for instance (obviously written by a JW and mistaken). I suspect that some people have criticized the site's accuracy, other than WP:RSN (see WP:RSP). If not, it may well be that the site is not notable enough to have an article, lacking independent coverage. —PaleoNeonate – 13:17, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

When I worked there, in its hey-day, it was routinely in the Top-10 of .. whatever that service is that tracks "web site traffic", I forget its name. It's star may have fallen a bit in the intervening time, but it had a significant run with a decent amount of internet traffic, and probably retains notable status. DBalling (talk) 20:33, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Answers.com&oldid=1204885647"