Talk:PostSecret

Livejournal Secret
Is LJSecret really notable enough to warrant a mention in this article? It's not the only spinoff of PostSecret (there's Text Secret, for one) and it's not necessarily the best one. 203.100.24.127 09:39, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

The website PostSecret.com is arguably a Postmodern concept, since it represents a collective artist and viewer. This contrasts with Modern art's concept of the unique "signature".

Maybe we could include that PostSecret emulates many other Postmodern concepts such as mass accessability, multiplicity, eclecticism, playfullness, and/or a fragmented nature. Also, there is much collage, mixing words with art, and appropriation of images (magazine cutouts etc.). I do not believe it is not at all hierarchical (very po-mo concept) yet the fact that Warren chooses which pieces he will post throws me off.

Either way, I think it should at least get a mention. Unless there is an objection I’d like to give it at least a sentence or two. - Schrandit 18:59, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Profits?
I'm kind of curious, where do the profits for this book go? I'd love to imagine that it all goes to a suicide prevention organization (taking some out for personal compensation is reasonable) but somehow I doubt that the cause is really so noble. Is Warren just an entrepreneur? Does he actually care? I'm curious about this because the book is advertised, but a site like this really seems to lend itself to donating to a good cause and that's not pointed out anywhere (that I've seen). --RoadDoggFL 06:00, 28 June 2006 (UTC)


 * There's some info in the Wikinews interview linked from the article. DMacks 07:16, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

i think it should be worth mentioning the 'please dont jump' movement that originated as a result of a post secret that got mailed in. One postsecret revealed that the person mailing in was planning to jump of the bridge in san francisco, and as a response the facebook group 'Please dont jump' was created, where thousands of people left a message to the person, pleading them not to jump. This story made the news and i thought it was a lovely thing. ash x — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.11.76.229 (talk) 13:10, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

500 peices
According to the bookjacket in the first book, PostSecret has received over 10,000 peices. I'm going to update the article.

Zidel333 21:24, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Controversy
It seems to me that the whole section about controversy is mainly just the opinion of the person who wrote the section. Without citation, to claim that "there are several who feel several of the postcards mailed in are attention-getting devices rather than true 'secrets'" and that "it is also felt by many that the claims of suicide wishes are over-exaggerated," doesn't seem like a well-researced fact. Maybe you could mention that there is no way to be sure that all entries are true, and that they may be embellished or made up, without claiming that "many people" feel that way? Or else I think it should be cited.67.176.255.157 04:43, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Email
I've noticed that some postcards have email responses to them. How does this work? Could someone who knows add something about that (if you think it's relevant). It's kind of been bothering me that I can't figure that out, so maybe some other people want to know too/--Lavender K 22:51, 5 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I would love to know that as well. Clearly some people have managed it. That would be an excellent edition to this article.


 * There's no email link on the page, or anyother way to contact the site overseers that I can find. I have however noticed people responding to secrets with postcards of their own, but not often. BethEnd 20:08, 6 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Using the Wayback Machine, I found an email: [mailto:Frank@docdel.com frank@docdel.com] Mike.lifeguard 14:41, 14 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I am pretty sure Frank does not use the above docdel email anymore. It is pretty easy to email him actually. There is an email link located at postsecret(or well there used to be before the 'nicole' bogspot), at the bottom of each post there is a little letter and arrow icon. If you click on that it redirects you to page where you can email Frank at frank@postsecret.com. Or alternatively you can join the mailing list, where people are notified of events. I think Frank chooses selective comments to post under the relevant post secrets. If you directly email him you recieve a message along the lines of "...I read all the emails sent to me, but I get so many I'm unable to respond to them all. .." You can view the little email icon on the google cached post secret page Wonny11 13:37, 16 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I think it would be useful to include his email address (frank@postsecret.com) in the article, since I know many, many people have difficulty finding it. I found the docdel email via postsecret.com's whois entry, and always thought that was it.  I know other people have said they found that email address too.  I'm not sure what wikipedia's policy on email addresses is, but I think this article especially would benefit from it, since it seems to be a piece of information many people try to find. dimo414 (talk) 05:48, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Email Edits
I've been watching the site all day (today, Frank's first day back, 08 July 2007) through NetNewsWire, which keeps track of edits and shows changes made. Frank has been editing a few of the email responses throughout the day...both the contents and the time-stamp he posts alongside them. It appears to me that the changes are being made to make the stories of the cards more appealing and perhaps sensationalizing them.

The email edits that are most active today are the ones following the "Amanda, you suck at being in love" card.

Earlier this morning, the first email response was something along the lines of "Joshua(?), you suck at being in love too." This was then followed by another email saying "I know I do, I'm sorry."

Right now, however, the "Joshua..." email has been removed leaving the "I know I do" email to appear as the initial response...and leading a viewer to believe that it was "Amanda" who wrote this "I know I do, I'm sorry." and not "Joshua," as was earlier suspected. Another email response has been posted that states "we both suck. thats why i love you" which leads a viewer to believe that this response was from "Joshua."

As someone who has been watching all this happen, it all seems awfully suspect to me. Anyone else notice this? Anyone else think this is a big deal? I think, considering how it has been demonstrated above that it is hard to find Frank's email address, that it isn't crazy to ask who is really writing these emails... Naglenagle 00:13, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I've noticed this as well, and while I don't want to start a big conspiracy theory over the emails, I will say I find them to be somewhat suspect given how it's not easy to email Frank, as you've noted. I'm going to start keeping a closer eye on those emails and see if they change again. So, basically, I have nothing real or conclusive to say, but the whole situation is curious, and I wouldn't be terribly surprised if the emails were fake or edited for the sake of "community art" or something like that, though I'm not ready to make that accusation at this point. Lavender K 18:11, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I never particularly assumed that the emails that seemed to be replies to one another were actually that--it's not like anyone could really know. 67.70.205.203 14:07, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

(from Frank) PostSecret gets about 300,000 visitors on Sundays and many people wait up early Sunday morning and are right "there" when the secrets are posted. I will check my email about an hour later and will usually post a few emails right then. I also sometimes post email on Sunday that I have saved from a few days earlier - general comments.

I had to take my email address off the Blog because I was getting too many messages but it is still pretty easy to get off the net. Anyways, I hope this addresses the "controversy".

Thanks,

-Frank —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.111.154.197 (talk) 20:40, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your interest in this article, Frank! Unfortunately, Wikipedia is not the place for originally published information. That is to say, we can't refer to information posted on the encyclopedia itself as a primary source. We'd be glad to use this information if you were to post it on your site somewhere - maybe within an FAQ or something. Thank you again! We're honored that you'd post here. =David ( talk )( contribs ) 02:43, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Spin-offs section needs cleanup
Reinstated "Briefgeheimen," which certainly deserves a spot on this list.--Kslain 00:32, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Alphabetized list again. Gives a sense of order to the list. Reinstated "In Cinq," which was dropped with no explanation. Whisperz writeup really needs an overhaul. Any takers?--Kslain 00:15, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Alphabetized list. Did a quick comb-through for grammar, punctuation, and objectivity. More needed.--Kslain 21:46, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't have a particular opinion about whether or not there are too many 'spin-offs' listed here, but I've renamed the section to 'similar sites and spin-offs' primarily because I felt it was important to recognize the fact that grouphug.us came well before PostSecret and was almost certainly an important inspiration (though I can't find a source to verify this for sure, the site was tremendously popular at the time of PostSecret's creation). Rather than create a new category just to describe grouphug, I renamed the section and moved grouphug to the top with a slightly expanded description. John Borne 21:20, 30 April 2007 (UTC).

It's shifted from being one or two spin-offs into a laundry list of many such sites and (if the recent edits are any indication) is headed towards a future full of edit-wars as everyone tries to promote his/her own site. This all seems well contrary to WP:EL. Anyone have thoughts about paring it down to the one or two main spin-offs? Or can we even decide what that means? Maybe better to describe generally the types of spin-off sites and intentionally not mention any by name? DMacks 02:00, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Crikey, is everyone and his mother is going to start adding some random blog or livejournal page and claim it's really an at-least-mildly important or notable spinoff of PostSecret? If no objections, I'll be doing some brutal cleanup here next week. DMacks 04:56, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think its necessary to delete all of them. granted many are there for users but then there are a few there because they are spin offs. Take myhardlife.com for example. The site was influenced by postsecret and now aims to help people with problems. There are no advertisements or profits being made but simply helping those who need it. I think when you research the pages take into account what the website is actually trying to accomplish. Postsecret has a goal, if the goals of those websites are similar to those of postsecret, then they are spinoffs and deserve to be up there. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Special:Contributions/ (talk)

I agree that it is probably valuable to have a spin-offs section to encourage the artistic value that is postsecret. Many of the sites in the list do add some variation on the idea and provide channels or support groups for, what it seems like, a lot of folks. It may be good to have some editorial review of the actual links, however, and only include sites that are indeed notable and have a consistent user base (and maybe a relatively clean look-and-feel and no or few ads). This would probably be in spirit of Wikipedia. My personal pet peeve would be sites that seem to have more Google ads than actual content, or the likes of MySpace, but of course other folks' opinion may vary. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Special:Contributions/ (talk)
 * It would be a great help if this talk page could come to some consensus about what the standards should be for listing spinoffs. # of pieces of art shown, mention in reliable sources, and links from PostSecret itself might be ideas to start with. That list badly needs updating, you're right. 64.126.24.11 17:54, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Mentioning a spinoff or two doesn't seem like a bad idea, but we shouldn't become a web directory, either. Which are the largest? Which have received the most attention from third parties? – Luna Santin  (talk) 07:01, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Indeed, DMOZ already has a web-directory related to this type of thing (I just added it to the "External links" section). DMacks 07:07, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * That sounds fair, to me, if no one has any objections. – Luna Santin  (talk) 07:15, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Section Break
The way this should be organised is this :- Those sites that meet WP:VERIFY and WP:NOTABILITY should have their own articles, and should be linked to in a "See Also" section. Simple. Exxolon 19:38, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Simple in theory, rather difficult in practice. Do any of these meet WP:VERIFY and WP:NOTABILITY, as you put it? And if so, how? – Luna Santin  (talk) 06:04, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
 * See WP:WEB for help. Exxolon 10:51, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Easy to say, difficult to apply. I'm looking for specifics, not generalities, here. – Luna Santin  (talk) 01:35, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Overview
It seems to me that some of the information in the overview (about the site not being updated this week) is repeated unecessarily later in the article. Does this information really belong in the overview section, or should it just be included in the recent events section? Minidictionary 05:24, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

"Recent Events"
Obviously at some point the header 'recent events' will need to be changed. It makes sense to me to go ahead and do it. Suggestions on the new section title?


 * I was about to try and re-organise the recent events section a little, maybe just as small a change as splitting off the more recent turmoil with the site not being updated and being brought down into its own section. I'll do that right now. — metaprimer (talk) 15:48, 16 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Ach - I didn't fully take in what I read. I assumed this was talking about the History section, but the recent events thereof. If I've responded irrelevently then it's because of the lack of signature(!) — metaprimer (talk) 15:52, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Events of September 16th, 2007
Someone is updating the page with information about the site. While it is all accurate, as far as I can tell, I was wondering if there is any way to go deeper since there seems to be no purpose. MaxoremNihil 14:01, 16 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm noticing that there are updates about the site giving an error instead of just being reverted to the "nicole" layout, however when I checked, it was the same layout as before only with the name "yoshie" instead of "nicole". Is there any evidence that this is Blogger thinking it's a spam site and not someone trying to attack the site? — metaprimer (talk) 16:19, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Defunktion.net link, a pointless ad?
The article says it's a postsecret archive (albeit static and not updated lately)... but seriously, there's like a dozen pics in it. I don't see this as anything more than an excuse to work a link into the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.122.200.96 (talk) 22:13, 22 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Concurred. I have removed it. DMacks (talk) 22:18, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Notability?
While it is notable that secrets have been put up in some schools and universities, is it really necessary to specify the Martingrove Collegiate Institute as one of them? It just sounds like one of the students at the school added it for kicks- in general I fail to see its relevance (If it is relevant, may I elect the University of Florida to be linked too? lol) Oroneko (talk) 09:41, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

archive.org
It seems that archive.org's wayback machine has a fairly complete record of all the postsecrets. You'll need to turn off javascript to make it work, as the photos resize themselves to 1x1 pixels with it on. Perhaps this should be mentioned in the section about previous postsecrets, since my reading of the article was that it was impossible to find previous postsecrets. I just discovered the site an hour ago and I wanted to see previous ones, so I tried archive.org 68.118.224.229 (talk) 04:48, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

CSI:NY Episode
PostSecret was recently featured in a CSI:NY episode where it was the basis of the plot. This should be mentioned somewhere in the article? It is definite notable exposure for the site. I don't feel comfortable writing it because I haven't personally seen the episode - has anyone seen it and wants to write it? Kitty16700 (talk) 10:07, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

source?
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13772_3-9890153-52.html —   pd_THOR  undefined | 18:43, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Moving interview possible source links here from external links section
I'm moving possible source links here from the external links section, which is WAY overloaded. momo ricks  22:42, 16 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Exclusive Interview With Frank Warren on Orato.com
 * 20 Questions with Frank Warren
 * Video Interview With Frank Warren
 * Audio interview with Frank Warren from alt.NPR's Love & Radio
 * A Conversation with Frank Warren in MungBeing Magazine
 * Warren Interview on The Hour with George Stroumboulopoulos
 * Video interview of Frank Warren by EPIC FU, weekly web show that covers online pop culture (August 14, 2008)
 * Frank Warren Ubben Lecture at DePauw University

Is PostSecret a healthy way to share secrets and cope with one another?
This idea of sharing secrets while still staying anonymous gives people the ability to say anything they want without having their identities revealed. It empowers the readers to confess about their depression, dreams, stories and experiences that otherwise in other situations they probably wouldn’t share with others. In the book he talks about his experiences with how people all around the world were so inspired by the postcards and how it got many people addressing things that they would otherwise never discuss.

In this book he said, "I have been inspired by the stories they have told me, stories that begin with a secret and end with a hope," But, in my opinion this sense of 'hope' doesn't seem to be the most healthy way to deal with these serious issues that most readers post about.

In an article by USATODAY it said

"But Evan Imber-Black, a family therapist and author of The Secret Life of Families, says telling secrets has no meaning except in the context of family relationships.

"We live in a time where people have the mistaken idea that you tell a secret to the multitudes on TV — and move on," she says. "But opening a secret is just the first step. (Posting on PostSecret) might offer some measure of relief, but I'm not sure how long it lasts. When a secret opens, it usually takes time and relational work to get a new equilibrium." "

I think that there should also be an emphasis on what harm PostSecret might have on a reader and also on an anonymous sender.

Conniechong (talk) 01:40, 10 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure that Wikipedia is the place for such a discussion. No original material should appear here, and neither should debates, speculation, and opinion. If you want to cite a relevant article as "criticism", leave out your own opinion. Just report on the fact that such a view was raised by someone notable. Many articles mention criticism of the subject, but it must be cited properly and within Wikipedia guidelines. The way it looks now, on the main page, does not follow the guidelines. - Whateverlolawants (talk) 22:55, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Postal address
I've added PostSecret's postal address, as well the email, to this article. I know the email is being actively discussed, but I think the physical address is an important part of this article too. Obviously, it's something readers would be interested to know and it's not always available on the PostSecret blog. Some weeks it is, others it's not. Right now the first result when searching for it in Google is a Yahoo Answers result. --JonathonSimister (talk) 01:27, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * It's not Wikipedia's job to be an email or postal directory. We have a link to the official site, that's sufficient.  --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 02:03, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * When you removed the address you reverted another unrelated edit (removing section heading) and a perfectly good sentence about the iPhone app. Please try to be more careful next time. --JonathonSimister (talk) 04:25, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Fundamental principle breach
I wasn't sure if this comes under Neutral Point Of View, Citation Needed or No Original Research. I put the Citation tag on. This paragraph in the History section struck me as subjective:

"This idea of sharing secrets while still staying anonymous gives people the ability to say anything they want without having their identities revealed. It empowers the readers to confess about their depression, dreams, stories and experiences that otherwise in other situations they probably wouldn’t share with others." That kind of statement should be cited. JaffaCakeLover (talk) 20:00, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * This may well be Warren's opinion or analysis of his site and traceable to something in his writings/interviews rather than a wider blanket statement. Either way, the wording should be clarified and cited. It may actually be a summary/introduction to the cited statement that follows it, in which case that paragraph needs some rewording to be clear on that point and avoid being so redundant. DMacks (talk) 20:31, 1 January 2012 (UTC)