Talk:Lamebook

this website has been mentioned in the wall street journal and on other numerous internet news sites

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203440104574399171270296690.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

http://www.examiner.com/x-18340-Lexington-Pop-Culture-Examiner~y2009m9d1-Bored-at-work-Here-are-five-links-to-solve-the-problem

http://www.gadgetell.com/tech/comment/whos-on-crack-in-tech-09.11.09/

http://www.techradar.com/news/internet/the-ten-commandments-of-social-networking-633187

http://www.heartlessdoll.com/2009/08/qa_with_the_founders_of_lamebook.php

http://www.eyeweekly.com/blog/post/70111

http://jetzt.sueddeutsche.de/texte/anzeigen/485062

http://www.yelp.com/topic/chicago-lame-book

Number of users per day

According to the Wikipedia page of Facebook, Lamebook averages 1 million views a day. According to Wolfram Alpha, it has daily 1.2 million views 420,000 daily users. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Erwinrossen (talk • contribs) 15:55, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

About the deletion.

Here Alexa cites a global traffic ranking of ~9000, and a traffic ranking in the US of ~2000. If the primary issue of deleting it is because of a lack of notoriety from Alexa, then that issue is bunk. 146.186.77.93 (talk) 21:24, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

No. A good ranking might be enough to demonstrate notability, but I think 2000 in US is a bit middling. OTOH a bad alexa rating isn't necessarily enough to demonstrate lack of notability. The most important thing is that the article page says why the site is significant. Not in the sense "this site is notable because BIGTHING". Just "This site is BIGTHING". I don't know what BIGTHING might be, but I do know that I'm not seeing one yet. Regards, Ben Aveling 05:04, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I support the deletion. I have to say, blogs, no matter how much traffic they generate, don't really qualify as encyclopedic content. It's already mentioned on the Facebook page, and I question even the pertinence of that mention. Just my two cents. Multicore 02:00, 17 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Multicore (talk • contribs)

I think that removing all blogs is absurd. That seems arbitrary and useless. 71.111.131.146 (talk) 17:15, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

What makes Lamebook more relevant than the average blog is the ongoing legal battle with Facebook. Deadwriter1 (talk) 14:43, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Article Improvement Ideas

• My group would like to expand and clean up the Lamebook page as part of our Online Communities class project. The Wikipedia page currently contains complaints about inline citations, unsourced material, notability, additional citations needed, and disrupted neutrality. We would like to correct these and include headlines such as: "Legal Issues" (Lamebook has been in an ongoing law dispute with Facebook for over a year, and it has just been settled), "Privacy" (they blur out the last name and photo of each person, yet people have still found themselves and complained), "History," and "Publications" (they are currently in the process of making a best of lamebook book which will be released in 2012). Please let me know if you have any suggestions!
  Jay3460 (talk) 01:54, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

• We would like to update the Facebook Legal Action section, since much has occurred since the events of November 11th, 2010, and the information is extremely outdated.
• One article, from Venture Beat (http://venturebeat.com/2011/08/31/facebook-and-lamebook-quietly-settle-trademark-battle/), provides information as to how the case was settled. In a joint statement, the companies proclaimed, "We are pleased to arrive at an agreement that protects Facebook's brand and trademark and allows for Lamebook's continued operation. The parties are now satisfied that users are not likely to be confused." From now on, Lamebook will be allowed to continue operations under its name, yet must add a disclaimer to its website. Also, Lamebook is not allowed to seek trademark protection for its name. The article also details the forthcoming Lamebook: The Best of the Worst on Facebook, to be released by Chronicle Books in 2012, and compiled by Joshua Huck, one of the writers behind Lamebook.
• Another article, from the Baylor Lariat (http://baylorlariat.com/2011/01/28/1731/) (which is their alma mater - Bayer University's - school newspaper), details the history of the writers, providing information to expand the History section. They were acquaintances in college, yet became friends after they graduated in 2005 with a degree in film and digital media. “We started Lamebook a little [after meeting], and after a few months of doing that it got so popular that we were able to quit our jobs at the offices and do that full time,” said Genitempo, who graduated in 2007 with a degree in graphic design. “That brought a lot of other different design opportunities for both of us.” In their defense against Facebook, Civins said, “[Lamebook] is a parody website; it’s supposed to be social commentary and it’s protected by free speech.” On Lamebook's website before the court case was settled, they asked for support in their efforts against Facebook, saying, “We really love running Lamebook. Aside from the laughs, it represents an opportunity to work on an incredibly fun project with our buddies that makes a lot of people happy and still allows us to make rent at the end of the month … Problem is, Facebook didn’t get the joke. They’ve decided to pick on the little guys: small business owners who seem to be no match for a multi-billion dollar behemoth. But this is one website that’s not going down without a fight.”

Jtemiller (talk) 19:45, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

• http://austin.culturemap.com/newsdetail/09-20-11-12-11-lamebook-facebook-frenemy/ and http://techcrunch.com/2010/11/22/facebook-blocks-lamebook/ detail the beginning of the lawsuit. Facebook deleted Lamebook's fan page temporarily (yet it used to have 85,000 fans and now only has 42,000), blocked Facebook users from being able to type the word "Lamebook" on Facebook for one day, and blocked the "like" function on Lamebook. This caused questions about freedom of speech on Facebook, and they eventually conceded with a statement: "This was a mistake on our part. In the process of dealing with a routine trademark violation issue regarding some links posted to Facebook, we blocked all mentions of the phrase “lamebook” on Facebook. We are committed to promoting free expression on Facebook. We apologize for our mistake in this case, and we are working to fix the process that led to this happening."

Jtemiller (talk) 01:44, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

• Another article that could help with Lamebook vs. Facebook http://www.zdnet.com/blog/facebook/facebook-and-lamebook-settle-trademark-dispute/3191 Brianb0511 (talk) 21:20, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

• Another part of this article that we would like to edit is the "Website" section. Since this was last edited, Lamebook has increased the number of categories they divide their site into. They have also added a "State Your Status" section where viewers who are registered members to Lamebook can write on Lamebook's wall. The site will review the post and potentially post it up for other viewers to see. At the right side of Lamebook's website, there is a large red button that allows viewers to submit screen shots to Lamebook. These are a few of the site's aspects we would like to add to this Wikipedia page.--MPComm3460 (talk) 03:57, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

• Lamebook's website also contains an online "store" where the viewer can purchase several Lamebook goods: such as an iPhone app, a desktop daily calendar, and pre-order the book, "Lamebook: The Best of the Worst on Facebook." Jtemiller (talk) 05:10, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Observers

Maybe you guys could consider including subcategories under "Websites" that broke down the functionality for readers and for posters. There obviously wouldn't be that much to say about "how to post" and so on but if you look at the FAQ on the site they have some posting guidelines They also speak about commenting on posts and what's not allowed. I also noticed that the top of the page links to other blogs such as Regretsy and Passive-Aggressive notes. What is the affiliation there? Are they all owned/founded by the same company/person? If so perhaps you could include a "See Also" section on the bottom of the page and link to their articles if they have them. Bethjaco (talk) 00:39, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I would like to see more of a description of the specifics of the website. Is there a website logo that could be included? Could you mention the layout of the site? I would also love to hear more specifics about the founders and the founding of the site. I would also like to see a bit more organization under the Facebook legal action. Other than that, this is a great start! Cmb268 (talk) 00:39, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I think that you have made amazing progress so far. I think a little but more information about the website itself would be good. How people post, what time of information do they need to share in order to do so, etc. Discuss the norms of it and give some more detailed examples of posts. You did a great job on incorporating Facebook's reaction and the legal action taken. I think it would be useful to discuss why people post or try to find some articles which touch upon this. --Laurensac (talk) 16:41, 29 September 2011 (UTC)Laurensac (talk)

Thank you guys for your feedback! Jay3460 (talk) 20:15, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Oversharing

The section on Oversharing doesn't really appear to fit into this article. It's not about the site in question, it's just tangentially relevant to the site's content. I'd just delete the material but it may make a decently-sourced article in its own right if the right references are available. §everal⇒|Times 18:52, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Once there is an article on Oversharing, then it will make sense to move many of the sentences here to that article. In the meantime, I think it should be left here. There are some parts that are particular to the use of Lamebook to highlight Facebook oversharing. LeshedInstructor (talk) 17:30, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV

I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:

This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:

1. There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
2. It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
3. In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:03, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lamebook. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110924071958/http://www.scribbal.com/2011/08/facebook-and-lamebook-bring-legal-trademark-battle-to-an-end/ to http://www.scribbal.com/2011/08/facebook-and-lamebook-bring-legal-trademark-battle-to-an-end/

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 08:32, 16 December 2017 (UTC)