Talk:SmartScore
 | The following Wikipedia contributor may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view. |
| The following Wikipedia contributor may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view.
|
 | Individuals with a conflict of interest, particularly those representing the subject of the article, are strongly advised not to directly edit the article. See Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. You may request corrections or suggest content here on the Talk page for independent editors to review, or contact us if the issue is urgent. |
 | This article was nominated for deletion on 2 August 2013 (UTC). The result of the discussion was speedy keep. |
 | This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
|
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present. |
Paid editor?
editIt appears that an editor who has participated in discussions here and has also edited the SmartScore article may have done so for financial reward. In this diff, (Redacted), who appears to be identical with User:CorporateM, declares: "I am a paid editor of this nature, but one that has taken the time to understand the rules, get involved and vowed to not touch articles directly, but collaborate with neutral editors". I note that despite this "vow", CorporateM has indeed "touched' this article directly. If, as it appears, this the case, then that editor has acted here in clear violation of the guidelines established at WP:NOPAY. I suggest that all such edits, and all comments made here, should be considered null, and the article be edited as if CorporateM had never "touched" it. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 00:46, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
- The right place to bring this up is at the Conflict of Interest Noticeboard, though I suspect you might experience a boomerang. No COI has been disclosed, nor does one exist, nor is there any evidence of one. Your accusation implies a complex conspiracy, whereas even though I am lecturing the actual PR editor User:KLafong, if I am actually on their payroll, we must be working in-concert and our entire discussion must be a complex ruse. It's an elaborate, speculation without evidence or actual content issues, followed by a proposal to revert the article to your version. CorporateM (Talk) 02:14, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
Message from IP
editThe tone and tenor of the "Reception'" page, after numerous and spirited arguments, has now devolved to a tone of pure dismissiveness.
- a "musical notation train-wreck.[2]"
- " Object Oriented Optical Music Recognition System (O3MR), as well as SharpEye2 outperforms SmartScore.[3]"
- "the user interface was confusing even for advanced users, and that the manual offered "little or no help, especially for the novice".[1]"
I would like to request the following correction(s) to the article on behalf of <<MUSITEK>>
- Example: In the Reception section, change to TALKING POINTS from NEGATIVE to NEUTRAL.
There are MANY positive reactions to SmarScore X2 throughout the Internet. Data changes EVERY DAY. USE GOOGLE and find out for yourselves !!! 70.57.197.92 (talk) 02:58, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
- I've moved the string down here. Just as SmartScore probably believes the sources themselves are bias, it is unlikely the company will ever be happy with the article here. There is no "neutral" versus "negative" - there is only whether it is representative of the source material. If the most credible reviews are negative, than a neutral article will have a critical perspective of the software. Also, it is the burden of the editor wishing to add material to provide the sources.
- I do see a few reviews are mentioned here, but I'm not sure any of them are reliable. The "music notation train wreck" should probably be removed. It's a metaphor not in keeping with Wikipedia's writing style that is highly editorialized and I'm not actually sure what it means. In comparison, saying the UI is crowded, has too many floating docks, is difficult to use and has poor instructions are all much more encyclopedic ways to describe criticisms. CorporateM (Talk) 04:30, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
Request for revision of "Reception" section
editUser:KLafong here. Yes, I am associated with Musitek and I understand I cannot and will not edit contents of the SmartScore page. I have parsed the page recently and feel the "Reception" section still needs to be revised to reflect SmartScore's current status more accurately. SmartScore X2 was released in 2013 with significant improvements in recognition accuracy due to a redesigned recognition engine. However, potential customers often still refer to "less than stellar" reviews on SmartScore's Wikipedia page when they inquire. We feel this reflects unfavorably on Musitek and could be considered unfair.
We appeal to User:CorporateM, whom we have now learned purchased an earlier copy of SmartScore in 2008, and may have had disappointing results for reasons not necessarily the fault of SmartScore, to revisit SmartScore page and talk history for evidence of possible bias on his part. Musitek is happy to extend to User:CorporateM a free upgrade to SmartScore X2 Pro. Simply make a request to admin@musitek.com.
In addition, I encourage User:CorporateM or any contributor to revisit the SmartScore review page here [1] and see if they agree with his statement that "I'm not sure any of (the reviews) are reliable". We are also requesting that the "Reception" section clearly indicate that the listed reviews are chronological (from older to newer meaning the list starts from "bad" to "better")... perhaps by preceding the synopses with the date i.e. 2002 xxxx 2004 xxxx etc.
Thanks for listening. KLafong (talk) 20:08, 9 March 2017 (UTC)