Jump to content

Talk:Technorati

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

Out of date

[edit]

This article is out of date. Technorati has changed CEOs, acquired two companies, launched an advertising network, and more, since this article was written. Please bring this article up to date. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jen McLean (talk • contribs) 22:17, September 28, 2009

The article introduction has been brought up-to-date, however the Reception section hasn't yet been updated to reflect the major changes in Technorati's business model. This should be addressed, as their initial business model was completely upheaved in favor of focusing on their advertising network. --Orun Bhuiyan (talk) 21:18, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Another part of the article that is conveniently out of date is the Alexa ranking in the info box, dated April 2014, for a company that, according to the article, switched from a search utility role to a remarkably less "public-facing" role in the following month, May 2014. I'm quite surprised someone hasn't raised the "reads like an ad" flag.Lori (talk) 09:12, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Also Dave Sifry is listed as the "owner", but he left the company years ago. Orun Bhuiyan (talk) 14:38, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Missing information

[edit]

Someone should add mention of Technorati's pioneering role promoting tags and microformats.

I thought this would be obvious, but the article should also explain how exactly people should use Technorati.65.248.252.99 (talk) 07:46, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was going to update this article with information like this until I realized Technorati underwent a significant transformation in their mission and business model. Is this still relevant from a historical perspective? If so a section on Technorati's late blog search engine may be appropriate. --Orun Bhuiyan (talk) 21:24, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article contains many inaccuracies and is completely out of date

[edit]

[disclaimer: I work for Technorati] The core of this article was written several years ago and does not reflect what either the site or the company do today. Further, the note at the bottom of the discussion page that insinuates that special interests from Technorati itself have taken over the article is pretty baseless, given just how inaccurate, how out of date and how negative and subjective the article is. If the company had any involvement in writing the article or anything on this discussion page, it surely would be more accurate. It is inappropriate for me to edit the article, but if someone would like to bring the article up to date, please contact me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Karmushafon (talk • contribs) 14:52, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm willing to objectively update this article. What would you include? I believe that a section for Technorati's history as a blog search engine is appropriate. You didn't sign your comment so I can't get in touch with you. I'll go ahead and edit the article and if you notice I miss anything please let me know here (or tweet my username). --Orun Bhuiyan (talk) 21:29, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced Statements

[edit]

Unless Technorati uses and contributes to open source software I think it should be removed. It is unsourced, and even possibly POV? Computerjoe's talk 17:06, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


hi this is a test blog........

Pronouciation

[edit]

What is the correct pronounciation of the site?

I pronounce it Tek-no-arti , but I'm not sure if that is correct. Computerjoe's talk 19:23, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to know as well. I usually pronounce it "techno-ratty" or sometimes, in the manner of ghoti, "techno-rash." -Jordon Kalilich 16:18, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I called the company as I wanted to know for sure....their voicemail said... "tech-no-ra-tee" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.110.6.4 (talk • contribs) 14:06, March 30, 2007 (UTC)

Chronological error

[edit]

The article's statement that "In June 2005 WebPro News reported that at the opening of 2006 Technorati stopped crawling newly added sites" makes absolutely no chronological sense. How can a news report from June 2005 predict the future? Kaijan 20:30, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. Computerjoe's talk 20:32, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Technorati Steals Content

[edit]

Technorati steals content. It is a major concern that Wikipedia allows links to such a site!

A companies actions do not warrent disexclusion from the Wikipedia. Technorati is notable. Computerjoe's talk 12:21, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

China

[edit]

China has been widely criticized for its Internet censorship, but this criticism is not primarily due to its blocking of Technorati. I removed a sentence which seemed to imply otherwise. PuerExMachina 01:49, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Criticisms: Dave Sifry, Tantek Çelik

[edit]

Both the Dave Sifry and Tantek Çelik pages have a duplication of the 'Criticisms' section of this page. I think the information only belongs on this, the technorati page.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 189.172.38.108 (talk) 17:07, 1 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Criticisms, cont'd

[edit]

The Technorati ranking system is completely bogus. The myspace blogs of Dane Cook, Tila Tequila, and Tom are not ranked. Their #1 blog (Engadget) gets about 2-3 comments per entry compared to thousands for Tila Tequila and Jeffrey Star (both singers). They ranked the Google help blog but didn't rank Tom, who probably has millions of readers for his blog.

The Suicide Girls myspace blog is also more popular than any of Technorati's top 10 blogs.

Why anyone takes this ranking seriously is beyond me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.91.124.186 (talk • contribs) 16:54, March 5, 2007

Firstly you say they don't rank Dane Cook's MySpace blog... What is this then: http://technorati.com/blogs/http%3A%2F%2Fblog.myspace.com%2Fdanecook
Anyway. If you want something like this included, having sources to back it up makes it more likely. AlistairMcMillan 22:09, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually the SuicideGirls blog comes in at 42.
http://technorati.com/blogs/http%3A%2F%2Fblog.myspace.com%2Fsuicidegirls
Not quite in the top 10. AlistairMcMillan 22:11, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Sir, Please check homepage of our website www.goldenduas.com. The Christianity and Islam are mutual friends as per Quranic Verses 5:82. Off late we are bombarded with news in the world media about the priesthood in Catholicism, which is already mentioned in the holy Quranic Verses 57:27-28.

All the islamist governments and also other islamist organisations in the world failed to notice to the public that the christians are not arragant and amongst them are priests and monks. In the absence of the same, there is no peace between two largest communities in the world. the christianity is recognised as per quranic verses 5:82 and 57:27,28, no christian can criticise islam is false or sattan community. We have no any other interest except to brng the world into peace according to our messages posted in our website WWW.GOLDENDUAS.COM. Islam banned compulsory conversion into Islam from any other communities in the world as per quranic verse 2:256.

Please download from web site WWW.GOLDENDUAS.COM<http://www.goldenduas.com/> prayers from Holy Quran regarding the same. The message may be circulated to all concerned through government websites, media publications in all languages and through all mediums of communication as per Quranic Verses 2:2,10:57,17:11,16,28:59, 39:55,57,13:37&65:8. Otherwise it will amount to refusal to follow our Lord's Order, guidance and direction as per Quranic Verses 6:26.

With kind regards U. IBRAHIM ALI —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.164.75.30 (talk) 11:59, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]



Technorati cannot properly index the myspace blogs because they only count "links" of readers who've written a blog. They have not found a way to count readers who have links but have not written a blog, which is the vast majority of myspace users and readers.
As a result the top blogs are not listed in their ranking, which brings into questions their credibility as a ranking system.
The evidence to support this is on myspace itself. As an example, one of the more popular blogs on myspace is Jeffree Star who received 1,608 comments to his most recent blog and several thousand to a blog before that.
http://www.myspace.com/jeffreestar
Tila Tequila has thousands of readers as well. And many of her blogs, although not rocket science, receive hundreds and sometimes thousands of comments from readers. Far more than any of the top ten blogs ranked on Technorati which have thousands of dead links. And by that I mean lots of links but not very many readers, as evidence by the lack of comments which is indicative of readership.
Whether we like it or not, the most popular blogs are on myspace and Technorati hasn't figured out how to properly rank them or refuses to do so. Until they find a way to accurately reflect the popularity of myspace blogs their ranking is not legitimate and criticisms are valid. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.91.124.186 (talk) 03:38, 6 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Technorati has never claimed to rank blogs by readership. If someone credible has written their criticism somewhere that can be cited, then please provide a link. Criticism must be cited. Please read our policy: WP:VERIFY. AlistairMcMillan 04:09, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do we have a bunch of Technorati fanboys here? Obviously they're not ranking the myspace blogs fairly. And pointing to their flawed rankings to prove anything is ridiculous. A ranking system is supposed to rank something. If Technorati "never claimed to rank readership" then it's not much of a ranking system. And that is a legit criticism. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.91.124.186 (talk) 06:35, 21 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Please read WP:ATT and cite reliable sources criticizing Technorati for not ranking blogs by number of readers. Your personal opinions aren't going in the article. AlistairMcMillan 14:47, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sources were cited. If you're still not satisfied then you need to contact Technorati and get some direct quotes rather than assume your opinion on what is reliable trumps the rest of the world. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.91.124.186 (talk • contribs) 21:30, March 23, 2007

I've re-written your personal rant again. If you continue to insert your POV into the article, I'll have to assume you are only here to vandalise Wikipedia. If you something else added to the article, read our policy WP:ATT and cite a source first. AlistairMcMillan 22:13, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MYSPACE

[edit]

We need to determine how we're going to handle Technorati's obvious inability to properly rank MySpace blogs. Not a single myspace blog is ranked in their top 100, although previously they did rank a few and then removed them. But even those were not ranked fairly.

I assume Technorati doesn't want to properly rank them since their top 100 blogs would be filled with myspace blogs that many outside of MySpace community discriminate against on the grounds that they do not rise to the quality level of other blogs.

The top MySpace blogs have more readers and more comments than the top Technorati blogs. As a result Technorati is not a legitimate ranking of blogs, but rather, the blogs that are part of their "in crowd".

A fair ranking of the MySpace blogs would be readers and/or subscribers which are easily to tabulate. Rather than Technorati's "links". In fact, a MySpace subscriber is linked to the blog author, but Technorati doesn't tabulate that properly. Every time a blog author writes a new blog on MySpace the subscribers are notified.

And MySpace does calculate the number of people who actually read a blog, which is more accurate than Technorati's ridiculous link system which is easily scammed. Since MySpace is the most popular blog site in the United States we need to highlight that Technorati is NOT properly ranking their blogs.

A top blog on MySpace can easily have 500-700 comments per blog. The top Technorati blogs have a handful of comments. Obviously there is a correlation between comments and actual readers. I am left wondering if the blogs on Technorati that are consistently ranked ahead of MySpace blogs with larger readerships compensate Technorati in some way? Why improperly rank those blogs if there is not some incentive to do it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.227.203.49 (talk • contribs) 15:57, May 25, 2007

There is NO way to accurately work out how many people read a particular website. Look at the way other search engines work. They don't rank sites by how many people read them, they rank them on how many people link to them.
Nobody counts how many people read websites. The closest they can do is count "hits", but they have no way of knowing whether a visitor actually reads the pages that they visit with their web browser.
Comments don't equal readers either.
Please give up on this nonsense. We are not going to include your personal criticism of Technorati in the article. We are only going to include legitimate criticism that can be cited. AlistairMcMillan 18:39, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]


It's hardly nonsense. And that's why reason will prevail.
Even if we use your ridiculous and Technorati's biased example of "links" the MySpace blogs would still be in the top 10 ten since every time there is a new subscriber a link is created. So by your biased example they should still dominate the Technorati rankings.
Instead, Technorati only counts a fraction of these "links". The main reason is that if they actually fairly accounted for the MySpace blogs the Technorati rankings would be packed with blogs from MySpace, many of whom are wrestlers, musicians, etc.
If there is NO WAY to accurately work out how many people read a blog then why rank at all? Do you honestly believe that blogs with hundreds and sometimes thousands of comments (from different readers) is less popular than Technorati blogs with 10 or 20 and ranked in the top 10? Come on!
Fortunately, MySpace can easily tabulate where readers go within their system and the number of readers is revealed to the blog author. So the author and the system administrators know exactly how many readers visited the page. It's not rocket science Alistair.
The use of links as an indicator of readers is even more problematic. Simply because someone creates a link doesn't mean they read the blog -- as evidenced by the lack of comments on the Technorati top ranked blogs.
Technorati has no way of know whether their top ranked blogs are being read, but MySpace has all that information about their blogs. And it's as easy as pie to get that information since MySpace is willing to share it.
Instead of pissing and moaning, reverting, and crying foul. How about standing up for something for a change and making sure the top blogs are ranked fairly? I think your efforts would be much more appreciated if they were focused on positive change rather than your penchant for trouble making. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.227.203.49 (talk • contribs) 19:43, May 25, 2007
Wikipedia is not your personal soapbox. If you want to start a campaign to get Technorati to change the way that their ranking system works, then please go find a suitable venue. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, it is not a publisher of original thought, articles should only contain verifiable content from reliable sources and content should not be synthesized to advance a position. AlistairMcMillan 20:18, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not my personal soapbox? That is amusing coming from someone like yourself, a poster child for Irish Springs, Dove, and let's not forget Zest. You need stop abusing your authority. Or someday you'll wake up, next to your computer, and it will be gone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.227.203.49 (talk • contribs) 22:38, May 25, 2007
Please stop vandalizing the page with information from unauthoritative sources. This is a clear violation of Wikipedia policy. 71.142.90.47 18:40, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please read WP:NOR before making another edit. 71.142.90.47 18:45, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You don't understand WP:NOR. It means that editors aren't supposed to insert their own opinions into the article. Mentioning other people's opinions is fine. If you remove the criticism section from the article again, you will be blocked from editing. AlistairMcMillan 23:33, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How do either Debi Jones or Technosailor fit the definition of a reliable source? These are two random bloggers who don't like the way Technorati calculates its rankings. There are thousands of bloggers who complain about Technorati. If there is to be a criticism section it should at least consist of criticism from notable bloggers and journalists. Random opinions from nobody bloggers obviously don't belong on Wikipedia.
Further, the specific criticism only applies to the Technorati rankings as of early 2006, since Technorati now indexes Myspace blogs. Why does a complaint about how the service worked a year and a half ago belong on the encyclopedia entry? 71.142.90.47 23:51, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How much is Technorati paying you for this tripe? I vote in favor of blocking this Technorati flag waving fan boy. Let the record note I actually agree with Alistair McMillan for once. Long live Alistair! =-)

Fair use rationale for Image:Technorati (logo).gif

[edit]

Image:Technorati (logo).gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:05, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article manipulation

[edit]

This article is being manipulated by special interests (apparently, and particularly Technorati themselves), and those wishing to express an opinion about the validity of various Web analyses. It needs to be trimmed to a few basic facts, and monitored to preclude further spamming. WP:SPAM. Piano non troppo (talk) 07:40, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hardly any changes in the last two months. This article is just a hot-bed of activity. I'm removing the totallydisputed tag. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 16:34, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Article seems to be a battleground" is based on that one edit from earlier today? Someone needs to chill out. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 16:36, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Inaccuracies and citations

[edit]

would someone please update this article. I work for Technorati and can't do this myself. Here are some of the launches and acquisitions over the past 2 years.

I'm also conflicted because I'm on the board of Technorati, but if someone could take a look at this, I'd appreciate it as well. ;-) --Joi (talk) 20:57, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Technorati&oldid=1202376676"