Talk:IntelliTXT

The benefits?

How about the fact that it allows publishers to keep their content free? People do need to make a living, or at the very least break even (hosting costs, etc). Vibrant is a reputable company that has won many awards (http://vibrantmedia.com/about_vibrant/awards.asp)

I think any discussion/article about IntelliTXT should make mention of the controversial nature of the technology. An example is Forbes, which used the system and then removed it due to objections about editorial integrity. Most of the controversy comes from forum sites, where the IntelliTXT script converts user-generated content into advertising. This article also glosses over the negative impact IntelliTXT has on site usability.

Blocking info

I have no problem with including information on how to block the ads in principle, but it doesn't seem very encyclopedic to me. I think adding links to sites that explain how to block the ads to the external links section would be better. Nightwatch／respond 16:04, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Jamesino 22:47, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

How to block

add this to hosts:

127.0.0.1 itxt.vibrantmedia.com

or maybe 0.0.0.0

0.0.0.0 itxt.vibrantmedia.com 0.0.0.0 www.vibrantmedia.com 0.0.0.0 vibrantmedia.com 0.0.0.0 intellitxt.com —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Family Guy Guy (talk • contribs) 18:38, August 2, 2006 (UTC).

Another way to block

Block these URLs on a proxy server:

intellitxt.com/intellitxt kona.kontera.com/javascript/lib spa.snap.com —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sendmoreinfo (talk • contribs) 17:44, 8 December 2006 (UTC).

Ryan Block article

Hello. I just added a reference to Ryan Block's article regarding IntelliTXT.

Hope this is okay. If not, just delete it, or move it to a more appropriate location. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.167.158.92 (talk) 03:19, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Unless you can demonstrate that Ryan Block is an expert in the field of advertising its his personal blog and personal opinion. Please see WP:V for the narrow allowance that is made for the use of blogs as citations WP:V#Self-published_sources_.28online_and_paper.29.--Crossmr 15:12, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. I've no interest in getting in the way of the wikitocracy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.167.158.92 (talk) 19:40, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

He runs one of the biggest blogs, Engadget, which makes tons of money from blog advertising. That qualifies him as an expert. You deleted it just to push your own personal agenda. You were even told this before and ignored it. -Nathan J. Yoder 08:03, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

That doesn't make him an expert in online advertising. Perhaps you should read WP:V again. You need to provide evidence that he's an expert. being in charge of a website doesn't make him an expert in everything to do with that. can you provide evidence that he's given lectures on online advertising? that he's held a job for a considerable time as someone in charge of online advertising, that he's worked for a large online advertising firm in a considerable role or that he's consulted for other companies in the field of online advertising? If you can't, that you have no evidence that he's an expert in the field of online advertising.--Crossmr 15:29, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Find a requirement that he be an expert in advertising, because none exists. Failing to do so, I'll just put it back, since 100% of your arguments are you claiming that it's part of some policy (and failing to back it up). Here's a hint: try to argue on the particular merits for once instead of wikilawyering. He's the chief editor of one of the biggest blogs, which certainly makes his opinion here notable. Feel free to get the opinions of others if you feel otherwise. If you engage in argumentum ad nauseam in this page, I'll ignore it, so get others invovled and DON'T violate 3RR again--but we all know you freely throw out policies when they don't suit you. -Nathan J. Yoder 05:40, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh and out of curiosity: did you bother to check who he was before you did all of this? I bet you didn't check and will refuse to admit your error (you don't remove sourced information from a person without knowing who that perosn is). -Nathan J. Yoder 05:42, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

lets go over this: The liability of this feature is that it makes pages more difficult to read; scrolling down the page may inadvertently cause delays while random ads flash on and pause before disappearing. This is unsourced opinion, drawing this conclusion without a source is original research. Please go read it WP:OR.

This Also, many publishers have a short expiration date on the cookies, so they keep coming back after a couple of weeks or less Is unsourced opinion on how many publishers do this. Its drawing a conclusion about the number of publishers which put short expiration dates on cookies.

This is also unsourced opinion and likely there will never be a source found for it Many users use ad filtering software such as AdBlock to block IntelliTXT ads. If you want to include that statement find a source. The burden of evidence is on you per WP:V.--Crossmr 15:51, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Right, an unsourced opinion, making it an unsourced opinion, not OR. That means a citation is needed, not that it is OR and you aren't qualified to draw that conclusion since you didn't bother making any honest attempt at checking, because we know you're not interested in finding anything that might contradict you. Again, you don't remove, you tag it, that is de facto standard practice. I wasn't the person who originally added all of that, by the way. -Nathan J. Yoder 05:40, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Not but you're the person who wants to add OR restore. I've given you policy which states we don't tag and leave it. Please stop editing in the face of policy. They've used their own observation to draw a conclusion about how many companies, users, etc do x. Thats original research. Even if you want to call it an unsourced fact, its unsourced and there is no requirement that its left in the article.--Crossmr 12:40, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

No, you're acting in bad faith again. You took 'may be removed' to mean 'must be removed.' If you look, there are numerous articles where people leave them in tagged for a period to allow people to find sources. Please stop claiming things are policy when you can't back it up. Go read OR--it doesn't apply to statements that are simply unsourced, otherwise all unsourced statements would be OR. I appreciate that you didn't find a requirement for for ryan block to be an expert in advertising, btw. I like this new policy you created that highly notable people can't have commentary on a subject concerning what they're notable for. -Nathan J. Yoder 03:49, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

A blog is a self-published source. WP:V requires that the author of a self-published source be a recognized expert in the field. This article is about a company whose field is online advertising. Therefore ryan block has to be identified as an expert in the field of online advertising.--Crossmr 03:59, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I'll stop entertaining this absurd intepretation and get into why it should be included directly. Why don't you actually consider the reason WP:V and WP:RS exist and consider the spirit of the rules? What does verifiability have to do with it? We know for a fact that this is the opinion of a notable blogger. They exist to prevent random Joe Blow's view from getting in,b ut this isn't Joe Blow. This is a notable guy who chooses what advertisements get included in one of the biggest blogs and he's commenting on how he would operate said notable blog--at the least he's an expert on how own job, which would at least make this quotable in the Engadget article. He is one of the closest things you'll get to an expert in blogging advertisement methodology and the success of Engadget certainly speaks to his skills. So given all of this, why wouldn't his opinion be notable and worthy of inclusion? Don't simply say "it's against the rules," I want specific reasoning--argue its merits and don't engage in straw man arguments, if you revert to "but we dont' want joe blow's opinion in this" I'll ignore it. -Nathan J. Yoder 04:35, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I'll add that he's also primarily arguing ethics, not what the most succesful adveritisng methods are. AFAIK, there is no such thing as an expert in blogging advertisement ethics and again, the best you could do is take the top people in blogging advertisements for that. -Nathan J. Yoder 04:37, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

notability doesn't give him verifiability or make his pov a non-trivial viewpoint. You demanded policy previously, its provided and yet you continue to edit in the face of it. There is no point in making an argument because you've demonstrated you've got no desire to listen to it. The specific reasoning is quite clear. He is not an expert in the field of online advertising. Either provide evidence that he is, or he doesn't meet the criteria to be considered a reliable source in this article. It doesn't matter what he's debating. This article is about a subject whose field is online-advertising. Unless he's an expert in that he's not usable on this article. Closest doesn't cut it. He's not an expert therefore he fails WP:V.--Crossmr 04:40, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I did, you didn't listen. You never address what I say, you just repet yourself. Notability BY DEFINITION makes it non-trivial. What the heck do you think non-trivial means? I've provided evidence that he is. If you're splitting hairs between "closest" and "precisely an expert," you're ignoring the spirit of the policy. Someone who is close to being an expert when no true experts exist in the area would be good enough. You are making not attempt to understand why the policy even exist. This is an obvious exception, even if you were right that he wasn't an expert. If people close to being experts aren't an exception, then what is? Why doesn't it cut it? And as I said, this is primarily about the ethics of it, which you ignored. -Nathan J. Yoder 04:46, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I addressed it. you raised no valid points. Hugh heffner is notable. His opinion in a blog about microsoft's latest operating system is meaningless. Do you see how it works yet? A single individuals opinion, notable or not doesn't make it verifiable or non-trivial. Its not an obvious exception. And edit warring doesn't make it anymore obvious. The subject of this article isn't ethics, its online advertising, even if it were you admit he's an expert in neither.--Crossmr 04:48, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

No you didn't, you just repeated 'it's policy it's policy, and never bothered explaining why it wasn't in the spirit of it, nor why it shouldn't be an exception. He was talking about the ethics of ussing this form of advertisement, meaning it's relevant to this article. What a horrible analogy. Hugh Hefner isn't involved in the software business at all, but Ryan Block's job directly includes managing blog advertisements. Explain how your analogy works. How can something be notable and trivial? How are you defining 'non-trivia'? Is this another situation where you refuse to clarify what you're saying? --Nathan J. Yoder 04:52, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

a janitor might clean up feces, that doesn't make him a verifiable source in an article on waste treatment plants. Just because he might be exposed to something in the course of his job doesn't make him an expert.--Crossmr 04:57, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

A janitor doesn't run a waste treatment plan. Ryan block runs the advertisements on a major blog. Another broken analogy. Additional failure to address the spirit of policies, exceptions and why they exist. Strike 2, one more and you're out. BTW, are you conceding that your previous analogy was bad? Are you willing to admit when you've erred? -Nathan J. Yoder —Preceding unsigned comment added by Njyoder (talk • contribs) 05:08, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

No, Ryan Block accepts money to slap some code on his website and allow someone else to put ads on his site. That is a far cry from being an expert in the field of online advertising.--Crossmr 05:15, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Even if that were an accurate assessment, your analogy is still false. I'm presenting multiple arguments here--both ones arguing that he is an expert and ones that even if he is an expert, he can still be included under policy/guidelines. Read negation theory--in order to refute your argument, I need to present one or more arguments refuting it and it's irrelevant as to whether or not they contradict eachother because a hole in your argument still remains a hole in your argument.

Some of the advertisements are unique to Engadget, so it's not just as if he was only using third-party advertisement services. Choosing what types of advertisements to use, how to format them and integrate them into the pages isn't an easy matter any more than choosing an appealing format for your pages in general (ideal for attracting customers and profit). Marketing in general, in case you weren't aware, is a large area of research because there's a lot of psychology and financial matters involved in creating better marketing strategies. Even if blog marketing were an easy matter, then you'd still be wrong for the following reason: 1) Blog marketing is easy (you conceded this); 2) Things which are easy to master are east to become an expert in. Therefore, because he has mastered this easy skill, he is an expert.

About tags. Tags also add the page to a category such as "articles with unsourced statmeents," making them easy for people to find so they can correct them--in other words, the tags are designed to promote people to correct them. In addition to the arguments already made regarding tags (in your response include assessment of those), it is clear that adding a tag and deleting it right away defeats the purpose because no one will see it on the page and it won't be included in the category. If you just want to delete it, then simply put in the edit summary what you think about it, tagging and deleting makes no sense at all. If you disagree, I can get people from the template pages to debate this matter, but I will only put this effort into this if you make an honest statement that you will actively participate in the debate, defending your position and not just repeating your position. Again, because of the arbitration case, I: may not comment on these for a while. This will be my last comment (I forgot to address this before I said that before). -Nathan J. Yoder 05:55, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Unless he's recognized by his peers as an expert in the field of online advertising he's not an expert. Unless you can provide any reliable sources which establish him as such outside your interpretation of what you think he does during the course of his job you've failed to meet the burden of proof to establish him as an expert. You are violating multiple parts of WP:V by failing to meet the burden of evidence and by failing to provide a proper source for this statement. His notability is immaterial, because its still one man's view. The only allowance we allow for self-published sources to be used as citation regardless of notability is if they are an expert in the field. You've been shown the policy, its very clear. You wish to restore the material and are failing to meet the policy by providing proper citation. Please stop violating policy when you edit articles.--Crossmr 12:57, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

"One man's view" has never been a means to exclude anything--"it's one experts view, it's one journalists view, etc." You are confusing verifiablity with reliability. Verifiability is the question as to whether or not this is, in fact, the opinion of Ryan Block and not someone pretending to be him. There's no question that it's really him. Reliability deals with whether or not it's reliable enough to be included. CBD, whom you claim you're listening to, even cited various news sources which themselves rely on the opinions of editors as well--if they qualify as reliable, certainly Block's should. Go read WP:BURO, it is very important. There isn't a hard requirement that he be an expert and if you can find a consensus demonstrating a hard requirement, without exception, for the purpose of reliable sources that are self-published, then do it. All I see is you attemptintin to wikilawyer regarding a part of RS that was copied to the V page--you're trying to use what would at best be a technicality to make this policy instead of guideline, when really that part you're citing is from RS, a guideline. Doing that's a violation of both WP:BURO and WP:CONSENSUS, especially considering changes like that have crept in without a true consensus. -Nathan J. Yoder 05:16, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

And as usual you're ignoring a third editor who has stepped in and again attempted to clarify it for you. CDB clearly stated that he didn't feel Block's opinion warranted attention in this article. WP:V is policy and it requires he be an expert. Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. A blog is a self-published medium, and this is a policy, which is consensus requiring he be identified as an expert.--Crossmr 05:22, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

WP:V and WP:RS are tied, WP:V directly references RS, and everything you add has to conform with WP:V. Its a policy and you don't get to skip it just because you want to drive and drive an unreliable source in.--Crossmr 05:27, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Crossmr, since when does replying to an editor (CBD in this case) and providing my counter-argument to what he said constitute ignoring it? You're being dishonest again. You didn't address my counter-argument, you just repeated yourself again. I already stated that you're confusing the two and explained. Just because the policies are tied doesn't make them the same--all Wikipedia policies are tied, it doesn't mean I can treat all guidelines as policies, doing so is a blatant violaton of WP:BURO (Did you honestly read it? I read everything you link to as an act of good faith, will you act in good faith for me, please?). Demonstrate consensus and you might have a point, ignoring consensus (or lack thereof), especially concerning policy matters, is against Wikipedia policy. P.S. Your arbitration case against me will get thrown out, nice try at abusing process though, it made me laugh at your reaction which is characteristic of histrionic behavior (not accusing you of being histrionic, just this behavior) ;). -Nathan J. Yoder 05:36, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

because there is no valid counter argument. You have two separate editors telling you this source is not usable in this article. Yet you continue to edit war instead of finishing the discussion. Policy is consensus the part about experts is in WP:V which is a policy, you cannot ignore that when editing, yet you continue to do so by introducing a source from an individual who is not identified as an expert in the field. You asked for where consensus stated they had to be an expert and WP:V does just that. Continue to add that material is ignoring both the compromise from an outside editor and editing in violation of policy.--Crossmr 05:41, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

If you'd like to have some other policies to look at while editing, you should also consider just above that: Every user is expected to interact with others civilly, calmly, and in a spirit of cooperation. There is to be no spirit of cooperation when 2 editors disagree with you and you continue to edit war and blatantly ignore policy. WP:3RR you don't have to revert 4 times in a 24 hour period to edit war and be in violation of the policy. You asked for where consensus was that the writer of a self-published source be an expert and it was provided for you. Its policy and all edits to article space must abide by policy. All policies are consensus its the only way they become policy.--Crossmr 05:48, 6 September 2007 (UTC)