Talk:PokerTracker

PT not notable?!
Lord, give me strength. It's written about almost ad infinitum in the poker world. (Crap UI imho, I'm no apologist for the software at all - but it needs an article.) --kingboyk 20:29, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Interpretation of facts
I need an opinion on an interpretation of an paragraph. The following part of a paragraph is at issue with a customer support representative at PokerTracker:

Total Gambler says that for more than a two-year period PokerTracker 2 was the "prominent force in online poker tracking", but that prior to the full release of their PokerTracker 3 software they had surrendered this position.[6]

The sentence is entirely attributed to http://www.totalgambler.com/poker/features/8169/poker_software_reviews.html, which says '''PokerTracker 2 was the prominent force in online poker tracking for well over two years. During that time, the software team enjoyed the luxury of market domination and, to a large extent, customer satisfaction.''' This is an article from December 2008, which is before PT3 was released in January 2009. The sentence speaks in the past tense of PokerTracker's dominance of the industry as if in December it was no longer the leader. Do you have an opinion on this text and whether it adheres to the WP:NPOV policy. It seems to me that this reliable source suggests that the software lost its leadership position briefly before version 3 came out.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:45, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It's entirely Total Gambler's opinion, and so should be stated that way. There are no independent sites that track sales of these products, and lots of people prefer Poker Office or something else.  Market share, customer satisfaction, all that is totally not verifiable, so reliable sources should just be quoted for their opinion, with WP:UNDUE the thing to be mindful of. 2005 (talk) 03:52, 4 June 2009 (UTC)


 * What about a change to the following:

Although it does not cite a source for sales, market share or customer satisfaction, Total Gambler says that for more than a two-year period PokerTracker 2 was the "prominent force in online poker tracking", but that prior to the full release of their PokerTracker 3 software they had surrendered this position.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:51, 4 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I see the point about past tense, but I don't think the source supports "prior to the full release of their PokerTracker 3 software they had surrendered this position". decltype (talk) 05:20, 4 June 2009 (UTC)


 * O.K. Does it support "Although it does not cite a source for sales, market share or customer satisfaction, Total Gambler says that for more than a two-year period PokerTracker 2 was the "prominent force in online poker tracking", but that prior in December 2008 they were not.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:32, 4 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I admit I am reading into the past tense, but in this field we have limited resources in terms of WP:RS. I am thinking that last Christmas I would have bought something other that PokerTracker if I was shopping for a gift for a gambling friend.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:32, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * That entire three sentence paragraph should be removed. It's just by definition all POV.  Some people think this (thus others don't).  None of it is needed.  The article is about something notable; it's market share three months ago, today or a month from now is neither demonstable nor very important, and anything said is kinda deceptive and guessing. 2005 (talk) 06:38, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * In general, isn't part of establishing something is notable relating whether it is a leader or it is recognized in its field. I find the deletion of every opinion of whether it was a leader highly unusual.  Usually, the policy is to say whether RS's have opinions on things.  I think the text should be edited, but not removed.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 07:46, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I am most likely the editor who started all this, I removed the statement (along with a lot of other things) because they seemed to me to be POV. I am afraid I agree with 2005, simply because it probably cannot be edited enough. -- Oldlaptop321 (talk·contribs) 12:33, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I am looking at your edits and don't see when you removed it. I have never heard of an editiorial discussion being resolved by something like remove becuase "it probably cannot be edited enough". I mean think of editorial debates between Democrats and Republicans, Palestines and Isrealis, etc.  Some really delicate stuff gets hashed out by talking and proposing changes.  Here is another attempt at something palateable that is less interpretive:
 * Although it does not cite a source for sales, market share or customer satisfaction, Total Gambler says that for more than a two-year period PokerTracker 2 was the "prominent force in online poker tracking", but at the time of its December 2008 review it speaks of this leadership position in the past tense, while asserting that PT3 had not yet been "fully released" at the time of their testing.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 13:19, 4 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I have given this more thought. I think expanded would be better thant eliinated as follows.  I think the following is quite NPOV and helps inform the reader:
 * Several websites continue to portray PokerTracker as the world's leading or the world's most popular poker tracking software. For example, Pokersource.com describes it as "the most popular poker tracking and analysis software available".  Party Poker describes PokerTracker as "the original and largest piece of poker tracking software". PokerSoftware.com says "Poker Tracker has been the industry standard . . . for years". However, although it does not cite a source for sales, market share or customer satisfaction, Total Gambler says that for more than a two-year period PokerTracker 2 was the "prominent force in online poker tracking", but at the time of its December 2008 review it speaks of this leadership position in the past tense, while asserting that PT3 had not yet been "fully released" at the time of their testing. --TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:39, 4 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Agree, this is simply a representation of significant viewpoints, and is NPOV. I think the clause "although it does not cite a source for sales, market share or customer satisfaction" is superfluous now, because none of the other sources mention any of those either. decltype (talk) 07:52, 5 June 2009 (UTC)