Talk:Boards.ie

Legal Action
MCD PRODUCTIONS currently have taken legal action against Boards.ie. Maybe a sentance on that. --Dark archeus 07:26, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

its probably worth including alright but i havent a huge amount of knowledge on this other than the ban on talking about MCD events

More Legal Action Nov. 2012
Oil company seeks and obtains order to name individuals who posted damaging remarks on boards.ie against it: http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2012/1129/1224327258662.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.125.4.168 (talk) 01:02, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The article you link to is behind a paywall. Would be interested to know more about this case and the outcome. 90.200.83.180 (talk) 18:10, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Vote for Deletion
This article survived a Vote for Deletion. The discussion can be found here. -Splash 02:47, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Response from the articles originator
When I first wrote this article I was worried that it might be seen as spam for what is technically a private website. However, boards.ie is a company solely for the reason that at the time it was impossible to get an Irish domain unless you were a company. It remains a privately owned operation simply due to backward Irish legislation. I think it is important that the internets emerging cities like Off-topic, Something Awful etc. are documented and updated to reflect the importance of how the internet is changing how people interact with each other and the growth of forums websites which could be comparable to the Industrial Revolution and the growth of real world cities.

Also, this article inspired our use of wiki technology (Biki) which in turn has popularised Wiki itself among the 40,000 boards.ie users as an authoritive source of information.

It is my humble opinion that deleting this article would not benefit Wiki in any way.

Thanks,

amp

'Interesting' arguement
Boards basically used trickery to wrongfully gain a '.ie' domain name under false pretences in the first place, and thus became a Limited company ... which should in no way hinder it on Wikipedia. Boards became big simply because of this bit of trickery, as everyone else played by the rules, and the two combined mean it should be noted on Wikipedia. Strange reasoning indeed ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.125.4.168 (talk) 01:15, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Too much detail
This article reads like a church newsletter.
 * 2004 saw a great deal of change with the upgrading of vBulletin 2 to vBulletin 3 and the addition of a new server

There is too much detail. How many gigs of data they transferred in 2003. Not interesting. What about: short description, short history, anything unique about it. Curtains99 13:42, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Really?
I was not aware that articles in Wiki had to be interesting. I thought that they had to be merely factual.

amp
 * You are correct; articles do not have be interesting. They have to be notable (WP:N). Articles should be neutral, referenced and encyclopaedic, containing notable, verifiable knowledge (WP:RES). Otherwise, wikipedia would end up with articles about people's pencil collections or what they had for dinner last tuesday. So, if you have any neutral, encyclopaedic, notable, verifiable information to add to this article, go ahead. Put yourself in the position of a person who has never heard of boards.ie and looks up this article to understand what boards.ie is and how it differs from any other internet bulletin board. Curtains99 11:57, 29 July 2006 (UTC)


 * They have to be interesting. 193.1.160.112 09:29, 15 September 2006


 * "Interesting" a rather subjective concept surely ??? 90.200.83.180 (talk) 22:28, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Slow servers
Curtains99, I claim that your re-edit of this article is not impartial, since highlighting the fact that boards.ie is slow on Wikipedia indicates some personal dislike for or issue with the site, in that you have to "broadcast" to readers that it is slow in such a prominent place in the article. You have the statistics to back it up, but I believe that posting those statistics in a factual article indicates a grudge. Please feel free to contact me if this is so, and I will see what I can do to resolve it. --Cloudie 22:10, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't follow your reasoning. You accept the facts as presented but believe that the presence of any factual, critical information in a Wikipedia article is proof of a personal dislike or grudge. This is the appeal to motive fallacy. Would you prefer a Wikipedia that contained only positive information about its subjects?
 * Have a look at the Wikipedia guidelines on writing vanity articles (Vanity Guidelines). In particular, this section: "The key rule is to not write about yourself, nor about the things you've done or created. If they are encyclopedic, somebody else will notice them and write an article about them." and "A word of caution. Before you write a vanity article on yourself, your group, or your company, remember that, once the article is created, you have no more right or ability to delete it than does any other editor. More than one user has created a vanity article, only to find that, in the normal course of research, other Wikipedia editors have found new material that presents the subject in a less-than-flattering light. Generally, such material will be added to the article, providing it is verifiably true and noteworthy — to the chagrin of the original creator. So, before you create a vanity article, you might want to ask yourself if there is anything publicly available in your past history or that of your group or company that you would not want included in the article — because such material will probably find its way into the article eventually." Curtains99 08:28, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Also have a look at Assume good faith. Please assume that other editors mean well unless you have proof to the contrary. Thanks Curtains99 11:33, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi Curtains99 - Looking back, I was probably just over-reacting due to the placement of the statistic - and acting uncharacteristically paranoid. I certainly don't want a vanity article, and I think the more verifiable independent references that can support both positive and negative aspects the better. I don't think that there is much in the current article that could be identified as advertising despite the latest addition of a Notability tag. --Cloudie (talk) 14:23, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Moderation
I would like to point out that not only are their servers slow, their moderation is quite terrible and they frequently ignore slews of complains their feedback/helpdesk forum. They seem to have a policy of making random peoples mods who are not qualified in the least. -- 78.19.173.131 15:09, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Just to add to the above really. Boards.ie moderators frequently allow moderators to troll forums and follow people they don't like from thread to thread. They then ban people who have 'crossed the line', having been wound up by friends of the moderators. In doing this said friends are allowed to break the opaque 'rules' as much as they want.

There is nothing spectacular or different about boards.ie. It is simply a site that got in on the act early because the founder was tech. savvy and found a way to register a '.ie' name when no one else could ( due to ridiculous red tape in Ireland at that time regarding .ie registrations ).

A problem which is so chronic that it needs mention are the login problems. Their other site - adverts.ie - apparently shares a database with boards. This leads to strange clashes between the two on login, not least getting logged in to adverts and then getting a login error after typing a big long post. Flakey, to say the very least. Deadpc (talk) 21:00, 30 October 2009 (UTC)


 * This has nothing to do with the article. See TPG "Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views on a subject." Take it elsewhere folks. RubberTyres (talk) 18:59, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that RubberTyres. Just wondering then why you allow the pretence at boards.ie being all casual despite being a Ltd. company in the article - when in fact the company status is used to censor even the mildest discussions on topics they don't like? Or by people they don't like? I can provide you with a ton of links if you wish: it's well known. If you're going to have a rule, apply it properly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.125.62.134 (talk) 16:43, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

How many actual users ?
Boards claim | to have 630,000 members (although as the article points out many of these may be banned, duplicate, inactive or closed accounts) and 2,400,000 unique users. What exactly is the difference between a member and a user ? Is it really the case that nearly 74% of users are merely lurkers who never bother registering an account letalone contribute. And seeing as how they cannot even give a figure for how many of those 630,000 are unique individuals (not duplicate account holders) still contributing on a regular basis how can they be so sure as to the uniqueness of those 2,400,000 "users" (most of whom seem to be unusually shy, lazy or uninterested enough to register -assuming of course they're not banned) ? 90.200.83.180 (talk) 13:25, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
 * According to thisthere are about 90,000 "active" accounts (user logs in at least once a month). No relaible way to determine how many are duplicate (Using IP addresses and/or cookies to determine this can give both false positives and negatives) 176.24.162.131 (talk) 19:58, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * In recent months the site has been experiencing a marked drop in the number of active users as interest shifts to reddit and social media platforms. They have updated the "look" of the site and reorganised the layout in an attempt to stem the decline 86.156.162.45 (talk) 13:56, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Who are Daft Media
So who are Daft media/daft.ie ? Theres no article about them.