Talk:IModerate

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Business and economics Portal This article is within the scope of the Business and Economics WikiProject.
Start	rated as start-Class on the assessment scale
Low	rated as low-importance on the assessment scale

Contents 1 Notability 2 Reply to Tiggerjay 3 Reply to Notability 4 Article has been edited 5 Previously Posted 6 Reply

[edit] Notability

This company does not appear to have anything remarkable or notable about it. The research, as presented in this article, is not innovative, but rather an obvious extension of an online survey. As such, with the informaiton included in it, the article is non-remarkable and will likely be speedily deleted. Can you please add to this article additional information which makes this approach and company something of a breakthrough. A notable and relibale 3rd party publication (non ad/press-release style) which states that this is really a breakthrough in survey methodology or something notable about the company, founders or investors may be helpful... The article has been edited down to what is probably nearly wikified, but the content is very lacking and would need to be developed more... :) Tiggerjay (talk) 20:11, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reply to Tiggerjay

[edit] Reply to Notability

I feel that the research presented in this article is innovative. iModerate is the first and only company to do what we do. Our methodology is patented. We are the sole provider of live, online one-on-one interview sessions. Our methodology gives researchers the unique opportunity to probe deeper on quantitative results in real-time. We give companies an opportunity to hear and listen to their customers through these interview sessions; showing them their customers thoughts and ideas. This in turn can help companies make major decisions, like changing logos, packaging, advertisement, ect... In coming to those conclusions companies can loose or gain enormous amounts of money depending on what is decided on. iModerate aids in this decision making process by allowing companies to hear what their customers have to say, and how they feel about what they are surveying.

iModerate is more than just an extension of an online survey. We can make entire surveys in-house, or we can put our solutions into an already constructed surveys. Our solutions can cut research time in half, giving companies results faster, thus allowing the company to make an educated decision quickly in a fast-paced marketplace.

The article titled: 'Instant Message and Research: A Natural Fit'(Alert! Magazine), and 'Political Ad Testing's Newest Weapon'(The Polling Report) educates the audience on what iModerate brings to the market, and how innovative we are.

I did mention the founders in the article, what did you want me to add to that?

When you mention it is lacking; how did you want me to add to this article, I understand it seems short, but I don't want to sound like I am advertising. What would be the best way to go about that?

Thank you for helping me Tiggerjay. If other editors could aid in this process that would be beneficial as well. I would like to get this article up, and hopefully with your help in tweaking it, that can happen.

You are asserting the notability of the company, however you need reliable third party sources to state this -- what you are providing is original research which is not permitted. I am looking for information which shows that this is innovative and remarkable -- look that those two links and learn abit more about what wikipedia requires for citing and sourcing your work. You mentioned the founders, but are they notable or remarkable people? Do they have a notable history? Such as being the former founder of some other remarkable company (craigslist? ebay? apple? etc) or have they done something remarkable in their pasts (noble peace prize, inventor of the microchip)... You mention a patent, can you provide a link? Gather together as much third party, reliable, repudiable sources and start quoting them in the article, with proper citation and that will really help. Tiggerjay (talk) 06:22, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I understand where you are coming from with the citing. Although I do have a question, why aren't the magazines that I cited consider reliable? They are mainstream news organizations.

I will look for the link to the patent, good suggestion. In addition I will provide more information, notability about the founders.

I am wondering how companies like Millward Brown for example, have less content, less references, and a self-serving article and they are on Wikipedia? What are they doing different? I'm only inquring, because I don't understand. I am in no way challenging what you have to say...I'm just trying to understand what they are doing right, and I am do wrong.

Thank you for all of your help, and I hope with your help I can put this article in mainspace.

Thanks again Tiggerjay, I really do appreciate your help.

BuffFans (talk) 15:04, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

No problem -- what I am trying to do is help you craft an article which will be acceptible right out of the gate and accepted by most editors as notable. Other artilces have many other reasons for being around - for example, so article are shorter but are notable right away (such as Enron could probably get away with a single paragraph to start); others assert notability and then build content; others had much more content in the bigginning, but were trimmed down (just like yours was); and finally there are others that have slipped under the radar and haven't been caught yet. :)

Regarding Millward Brown, I see that it was probably considered notable (this is the first time I've seen it), because it is a publically traded company, and is notable because it is one of the top 25 growing companies, as listed in a reliable third party source.

Your references appear to validate what you do and that you are a real company, with area product, but what I don't see is anything remarkable -- top growing companies is remarkable, and publically traded is borderline remarkable. Tiggerjay (talk) 15:35, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

So, I have edited the article, added, changed, and taken out some content. I have also added more national known third-party references. I have added in all the third-party reliable references that we have, and I hope this is enough to be able to be moved to mainspace. Let me know what you think about the new version, and of course edit what you think should be taken out.

Thank you for all of your help, and I look forward to seeing what you have to say about the re-vamped version. 38.97.193.203 (talk) 18:30, 15 May 2008 (UTC) I understand that you are helping me, and for that I cannot thank you enough.

[edit] Article has been edited

So, I have edited the article, added, changed, and taken out some content. I have also added more national known third-party references. I have added in all the third-party reliable references that we have, and I hope this is enough to be able to be moved to mainspace. Let me know what you think about the new version, and of course edit what you think should be taken out. Thank you for all of your help, and I look forward to seeing what you have to say about the re-vamped version. I cannot thank you enough for helping me!

BuffFans (talk) 18:05, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Previously Posted

BuffFans, have you previously posted this artile in the main space and had it deleted, removed, etc? If so, please let me know because we'll definately want to put it article past them first. Tiggerjay (talk) 15:52, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reply

Yes, TiggerJay I have posted this article before. Although I didn't know all of the rules then, and have since re-written this article and improve it. I feel that this article and only this article should be previewed for mainspace. I understand now why the last article was deleted, and I didn't solicit help at that time, and this time I have. I emailed Sam Korn for help on the previous one (and previous account), and he suggested that I start fresh, under a new username because of the fact that Wiki doesn't delete accounts. Thus I created BuffFans, and submitted the new article on a sub page for you to approve it after various suggestions on improvement. Sam was of much help, and sent me in your direction with a re-vamped article. Please review this article, the one that we've been working on, for submission to mainspace. The previous article was marked for a speedy deletion because of all the reasons you have helped me fix. Therefore I would like this article to be reviewed for mainspace. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BuffFans (talk • contribs) 15:21, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Sounds great, I posted a request over at Wikipedia:Requests for feedback however I haven't seen any replies yet. This is the proper channel for this sort of review. If we don't get anything back soon, I'll send over a request to a few friends for their comments. Tiggerjay (talk) 15:34, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Let me know what they say, and when we can post it in mainspace! Thanks for your help TiggerJayBuffFans (talk) 18:10, 19 May 2008 (UTC)