Talk:SmugMug

Notability

This was written by the people themselves. Smugsmug NOT known, not nearly as much as any of the other ones —Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.140.215.150 (talk • contribs) 02:13, March 1, 2006

Disclaimer: I am one of the owners of SmugMug.

Seems strange to defend my company here, but to say we're "NOT known" is pretty silly. A simple Google, Technorati, or Alexa search (using our real name - not 'Smugsmug') will show you that we're extremely well-known, comparable in traffic to Kodak, Shutterfly, and Snapfish and higher than Sony's ImageStation. We have more than 75,000,000 photos for heaven's sake.

I've refrained from editing this entry because I understand and respect the guidelines of Wikipedia, but we have a lot more to offer than listed here. Onethumb 01:08, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I am a dedicated user of Smugmug and I have met the owners and get paid for certain work that I do for them, but I am not an employee of smugmug.

I have to disagree that Smugmug is not known. I came to smugmug because of online articles and articles in various newspapers. What is not clear is which "other ones" the first commenter was talking about. My guess (and it's just a guess) is that flikr is more well known than smugmug. But I seriously doubt that pbase, mpix, exposure manager, or other more direct competition of smugmug is more well known.

Frankly I'd be interested to know who it was that wrote the initial comment. It's interesting that there was no signature or any information left about the commenter.--Lanemik 23:47, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Now you are finally well known as the ones that introduces the hideous policy changes on Flickr in 2022. Thanks for nothing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.12.49.38 (talk) 20:33, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

References

I just added some references as asked to by the previous editor. Since I am the founder and CEO, I'm trying to be as impartial as I can and just add links to reliable external sources, like Forbes and PC Magazine and the like.

If I'm doing something wrong, do let me know - I'm not trying to pimp my company here, since I really do love the ideals Wikipedia stands for. But it'd be a shame to get delisted because there weren't proper references by reputable media.

Thanks! --Onethumb 12:58, 13 June 2006 (PST)

I think 12 references is a bit too much for one place. Can you select... lets say 2 of them and put rest here in talk page? 2 references should be enough for a casual visitor and if somebody wanted more details, they can come here for the full list. WP:WEB requires "...multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself.", but I dont think all need to be present in the article itself. -Shinhan 14:07, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

This page has been added to the cleanup list. The article reads like PR. Among other things, linking to a dozen brag-file comments to "prove" that the company has good customer service is inappropriate for an encyclopedia. --Nate Silva 16:02, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi Onethumb. I think all the references are over-the-top. A few are okay, but to go too far makes the page look like it was written by Smugmug employees. I think that if the cleanup crew makes it more encyclopedic, it will only reflect positively on Smugmug. Let your reputation speak for itself! --Nate Silva 16:08, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi Nate Silva. I agree completely - I didn't even think those references were necessary, but people keep trying to delist this page as if we're not relevant. Their suggested course of action was media references - so I provided some in an effort to not get delisted. I'm happy to have them removed, since they quickly get out of date anyway. Anyone can Google search for our recent news if they really care, IMHO. Thanks! --Onethumb 23:14, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

How about you put references here to the talk page? Shinhan 05:27, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I finally got an idea how to make all those references look nicer. I've reformated them into bulleted point while retaining all of the references cited. That way begining paragraph will not have uggly string of numbers but only [1]. Shinhan 10:26, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Removing ad status

Ok I'm removing the ad status and original research, I was surfing around for a photosharing site. Though the claims of Smugmugs are abit unbelievable (that I can upload how much I want in basic account), I find no factual errors about this text. I'm not a user of smugmug/I don't own it Emj 11:24, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Argh now I see that people are fighting over this. Sigh... Grow up, there is nothing different about this and anyother wikipedian website entry. Of course if someone has any good claim of why this is an ad please tell me. Emj 11:28, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Emj, no factual errors is not enough. The tone is also wrong. It comes across as an advertisement, even if unintentionally. Compare this features section (which I just tagged) to Flickr's. Flickr's has much more prose (rather than bulleted lists of features). It even discusses different views of the features, e.g. "Because of its support for tags, Flickr has been cited as a prime example of effective use of folksonomy, although Thomas Vander Wal suggested that Flickr is not the best example." There is also a controversy section (admittedly, it's better to merge such sections into the rest of the article when possible). I'm not suggesting Flickr's article is perfect, just that it demonstrates some issues with this one. Superm401 - Talk 07:50, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Country? Location?

What country and city/state does Smugmug and its creators/company come from? Are we to assume that it is somewhere in the United States, due to its international domain name? If so, what state/city? FatBrain was based in California, should we assume that is the case here too? 136.186.1.188 (talk) 05:14, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

They are located in Mountain View, CA. I tried editing the infobox but did something wrong because the data doesn't show. It is there in the code however if someone wants to clean up.Jack's daddy (talk) 05:18, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Articles for expansion

• Sharing your Digital Photos – Chicago Tribune May 1, 2004
• You ought to be in pixels – New York Times, May 9, 2004
• Soldiers download war onto Web sites – San Francisco Chronicle, January 10, 2005
• Pixel perfect store – San Francisco Chronicle, May 23, 2005
• Sharing vacation photos is as easy as aim, shoot and upload – Los Angeles Times, May 29, 2005
• Make your images last – Macworld, July 7, 2005
• SmugMaps goes live – Tim O'Reilly, August 18, 2005
• Review – PC Magazine Editor's Choice, September 14, 2005.
• Mapping the Web's Future – Forbes, September 21, 2005
• Smugmug: Digital Pictures – troubleshooter.com, January 12, 2006.
• Review – Jupiter Research, February 2, 2006

These were on the article, putting here. tedder (talk) 01:49, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Notability (again)

I think perhaps SmugMug should be removed. Other online services like SmugMug (Zenfolio) have had their pages deleted. This page seems still more like an ad than an article. 166.205.139.230 (talk) 04:19, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

There are plenty of reliable sources to establish WP:GNG. Still, you are welcome to do so per WP:AFDHOWTO. I feel your time would be better spent elsewhere. tedder (talk) 04:44, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Tedder - SmugMug is notable and I doubt it would get deleted if you were to go to AfD. --Biker Biker (talk) 06:40, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Location

Unless the proprietors have uploaded their personalities and reside in the cloud, they must have an office somewhere. i could not find actual, real, physical, location/contact info. maybe the owners know where they are. they could at least post a photo of their offices, and we could try to guess where the photo was taken.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 20:47, 18 November 2012 (UTC)