Talk:HubSpot/Archive 2

COI Contributions
I have a  financial COI with HubSpot in that they’ve recruited me to help them improve articles they have a close personal connection with while following COI Best Practices. I've discussed my work previously with Woz2, who has been an active participant in the article-space. I've created a substantial body of work in an effort to improve the article here and shared the draft with Woz2 here. I also wanted to share my work on the Talk page for the purpose of transparency and to give other interested editors an opportunity to provide feedback on the draft. Corporate 15:51, 18 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I've completed the article and added images with licensing permission from HubSpot. I would like to request the article here be moved to article-space at such a time an impartial volunteer editor evaluates the article and deems it an improvement based on the spirit and letter of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Even though it's in my user space, feel free to be bold and edit it directly or provide feedback with civility and AGF. Corporate 21:55, 23 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I've reviewed Corporate's draft and believe it to be an improvement over the present article, which I substantially contributed as a fan. I'd like another editor to perform the "request edit" if possible. It looks like the page is hopelessly backlogged, so I might feel bold and do it myself in a few days if no one else does. Woz2 (talk) 00:34, 24 April 2012 (UTC)


 * OK No-one responded so I copy-pasted it. I removed the Amazon urls from the book cites and also the marcus the sales lion cite. He's a very passionate speaker but he has a COI because he resells hubspot. hth Woz2 (talk) 01:57, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the delay. Will review asap. Midlakewinter (talk) 21:01, 4 May 2012 (UTC)


 * WP:NORUSH ;-) Woz2 (talk)

Book authorship correction
I made a somewhat presumptuous interpretation of citation 48, which mentions that Halligan authored two books, but wasn't specific about who the co-authors are. Do either of you mind correcting as follows:
 * "CEO Brian Halligan and CTO Dharmesh Meerman authored Inbound Marketing: Get Found Using Google, Social Media, and Blogs.[48]
 * Halligan and David Meerman Scott authored Marketing Lessons from the Grateful Dead 

The error I made is that the original says Dharmesh co-authored both books, omitting Scott's authorship of the Grateful Dead book. Corporate 15:46, 7 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Done! Woz2 (talk) 01:17, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

GAN?
Wondering if we should nominate this as a good Article? Woz2 (talk) 23:30, 8 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Yah, go for it. I think it's pretty close already. Corporate 14:20, 9 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid I've had to disagree. The article is far too promotional in tone and contains far too much irrelevant detail. Malleus Fatuorum 22:48, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Far too promotional, misrepresentation of opinions as facts, self-published sources
There are over 100 references. I find this absurd for an article like this. I haven't had the time to review every one nor will I ever, but one thing I caught is that many sources are actually HubSpot's self published material cited in somewhere quoted as if someone else said it. There was patent misrepresentation of Hubspot's finding/opinion like "according to hubspot, blog in website increases traffic by" quoted in another paper written in this page as fact like "it has been shown that blog on website increases traffic by".

Go through the sources with apparently reliable domain names. You'll see that many are based on HubSpot's self published materials quoted within them and a bunch of them stitched up together.

Much of the contents are promotional material with refernces added to mold the article to say what HubSpot wants to say and they're too detailed for general audience. I think that many links are fetched to create sense of notability. See WP:Bombardment to get a better idea of what i mean.

There are also issues with unreliable sources such as using blogs as references, which are at best anecdotes.

Cantaloupe2 (talk) 12:09, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Introducing myself
My name is Rebecca, and I work for HubSpot. As noted above, others involved with our company have worked on this article in the past. I recognize that there are problems with the current version of the article, and would like to address them so the article better conforms to Wikipedia's article standards. I'm committed to doing so in a way that respects Wikipedia's neutrality policy, etc; the changes I'm most interested in are simple, and independently verifiable, factual corrections. I'll be back with specific suggestions shortly -- for now, I just wanted to impart that I will be looking at this page and suggesting improvements. -RebeccaChurt (talk) 18:38, 2 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I think it would help this article to make it clear and distinguish that the name HubSpot applies to both the software and the company. - RebeccaChurt (talk) 18:27, 8 November 2012 (UTC)