Talk:RabbitEars

RabbitEars logo
I uploaded the logo here: File:RabbitEarsLogo.gif, but I need info on the licensing for it. You can add it yourself, but I can do it if you need help (I hate dealing with images since their 10x worse then dealing with articles when it comes to deletion, but I at least know how to deal with Wikitext). You may end up needing to file an OTRS ticket about it, but I'll have to look into that. — V = I * R  (talk to Ω) 18:23, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't know what the deal would be on the logo. Let me know what you find out.  As far as I'm concerned, using it here is fair use and I'd be prepared to file an OTRS ticket on it and on the rankings if needed.TripEricson (talk) 21:16, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, that's the thing: Do you want the logo to be public domain, or do you want to hold a license to it and allow fair use? I imagine that you'll want to retain the rights to it, and CC-BY-SA is (again) seemingly the most compatible with Wikipedia. — V = I * R  (talk to Ω) 21:37, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I'll have to read the license. Perhaps I can remember to do it on Friday evening after classes end for the week. TripEricson (talk) 21:40, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

READS ranks license
You'll need to update the READS page on your site with (preferably) a Creative Commons license, since that's the most comparable that I know of with your stated usage restrictions. You can of course choose any license that you like, but you must add some sort of license info to the copyright notice on the bottom of the READS page for it to be available for use on Wikipedia. Wikipedia uses CC-BY-SA 3.0 and Text of the GNU Free Documentation License, so the standard is to require a compatible license. I don't really know the actual legal ramifications of licensing (and, quite honestly, I'm ideologically opposed to the existence of copyright in it's current form anyway), so I highly recommend speaking to someone with real legal knowledge. — V = I * R  (talk to Ω) 20:20, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I need to read up on the licensing for the READS Ranks, but I really don't have the time to. It should be a Creative Commons license of some kind I would hope.  Basically, I claim the copyright on the data only enough to protect it from someone swiping it and sticking their own name on it.  (A lot of man-hours went into compiling it, otherwise I wouldn't care at all.)  Otherwise, anyone can use it anywhere.  All I want is credit. TripEricson (talk) 21:16, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Yea, I hear you. This is why I hate the current copyright system, because that's a perfectly reasonable position to have (and is the position that I hold for all of my own work to date) but actually specifying that as a license is ridiculously bureaucratic. Essentially, you should have a license alongside the Copyright notice that is on all of the webpages on rabbitears.info. It sounds like you would be fine with a CC-BY-SA 3.0 license, exactly as Wikipedia now uses, for your entire site, or at least for the READS data (again with the large caveat that I really know nothing about this, legally). There are boilerplate creative commons licenses available on their website, so it would probably be best to create a page on the web server and add one, then all you need to do is link to it from the copyright sub-page. — V = I * R  (talk to Ω) 21:46, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Article development
Hey, thanks for this. I do appreciate it. I'm not so much upset about the removal (though I was at first) as much as I am disappointed that the hours of work I put into it can't be used here. Of course, I designed it for RabbitEars first and Wikipedia came later, but still. I mean, I even set up a nifty template just for Wikipedia! (It's not perfect, but that's not my fault.) My method is VERY simple. Take US Census data, go to each location, determine which set of local stations has the strongest field strength using the FCC's Longley-Rice signal strength calculation method, and assign it to that market accordingly. Some of it was automated, but large amounts of it were incorrect and had to be redone by hand. I spent at least 30 hours total, probably more, going through it by hand and making sure it was all correct.

Anyway, I dug up a number of articles, though I don't know which are relevant to you.

www.ehow.com/how_4786104_improve-overtheair-digital-tv-reception.html (This one was blocked by a filter) Crutchfield WCCB-TV WOLO-TV Ventura County Star Gotham Sound Columbus Dispatch Washington Apple Pi Lectrosonics Washington Post #1 Washington Post #2 Washington Post #3

Plus this was an article I wrote for the local newspaper that got published: Southside Messenger You might also check the RabbitEars FAQ page for details about the various people involved and whatnot. I can provide you any additional details you might require.

The one thing that I think is often missed is that the site was built for myself first and foremost. If I didn't post it online publicly, I'd simply have all this information in a text document on my local machine. If I'm going to go through all that effort, why not post it publicly for all to benefit from? TripEricson (talk) 00:36, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


 * OK, good stuff... I'll get started on something and probably start an actual article tomorrow. That table that you had, it would actually be good to create a navbox out of it... that should come later, however. — V = I * R  (talk to Ω) 00:45, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Which table? TripEricson (talk) 00:55, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * This one: User:TripEricson/READS Ranks You know, the page that started the fracas! ;) — V = I * R  (talk to Ω) 01:11, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, yes. That's in the link I provide in the first paragraph of my message above, already pre-formatted for Wikipedia (I spent an hour or two getting that right one day).  When you said "navbox" I had thought you were referring to something else. :) TripEricson (talk) 01:17, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, just looking over that page as I was posting the above, It occurred to me that it seems to be a good beginning to an actual article for RabbitEars itself. Don't be surprised if I just go with editing that page and eventually moving it to article space (doing that would preserve attribution to you and MBT as well) — V = I * R  (talk to Ω) 01:26, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I feel dumb, but what is "MBT"? Otherwise, sounds good. :) TripEricson (talk) 01:39, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I meant User:MC10. — V = I * R  (talk to Ω) 13:27, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Keep in mind that RabbitEars was not originally started in order to do anything specific to Nielsen. The READS Ranks were created as a response to Nielsen; the site itself already existed at that time. TripEricson (talk) 16:06, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, OK... is the whole site history written anywhere? — V = I * R  (talk to Ω) 16:10, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps this will help you. :) TripEricson (talk) 16:11, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Heh, I just saw that interview a few minutes ago. I wish that it wasn't in a forum, because some people will end up having fits about that, but I'll make it work. (I don't have an issue with using forum posts as a source where appropriate, but there is a rather bad history behind people attempting to inappropriate use forum/blog posts as a source, so unfortunately there are some editors who try deleting them on site.) — V = I * R  (talk to Ω) 16:22, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * My agreement with the admin of the forum is that I retained the right to post the interview on RabbitEars, but I never felt the need to do so. Would that be beneficial?  (I'd have to do it tonight, as I have to run off to class in about 5 minutes.)  TripEricson (talk) 16:29, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * That could help... although it would then be a self reference, but I can link to both the forum post and the repost on your site. — V = I * R  (talk to Ω) 16:31, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

1) Citation for 100000watts.com.  Scott Fybush is the current editor of 100000watts. 2)  Textual lists: Subchannels and Digital Transitional Reports. 3) Mobile DTV's article is at ATSC-M/H.  4)  I checked through my e-mail logs, and Falcon_77's spreadsheet was added to RabbitEars on July 29, 2008.

5) Technically, I consider the site to have launched on April 14, 2008.  I registered the name in 2004, but in all honesty, it didn't do much of anything at that point, so I'm not sure how fair it is to say that it was "formed" at that point. 6)  I need to read up on the licensing for the READS Ranks, but I really don't have the time to. It should be a Creative Commons license of some kind I would hope. Basically, I claim the copyright on the data only enough to protect it from someone swiping it and sticking their own name on it. (A lot of man-hours went into compiling it, otherwise I wouldn't care at all.) Otherwise, anyone can use it anywhere. All I want is credit. 7) I don't know what the deal would be on the logo.  Let me know what you find out.  As far as I'm concerned, using it here is fair use and I'd be prepared to file an OTRS ticket on it and on the rankings if needed.

Is there anything else I can help with? :) TripEricson (talk) 21:16, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


 * OK, I fixed the Mobile TV links (thanks, I had no idea where that article was!) — V = I * R  (talk to Ω) 21:33, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Added the spreadsheet date — V = I * R  (talk to Ω) 21:54, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Took care of the 10000watts.com dates (I think...) — V = I * R  (talk to Ω) 22:11, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It was definitely operating long before 2002. TripEricson (talk) 22:15, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Yea, I figured that would be true... we need a source though. — V = I * R  (talk to Ω) 22:21, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Fixed the "Textual lists" item — V = I * R  (talk to Ω) 22:22, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I sort of fixed the start date item... not well, but *shrug* I'll come back to that issue later, and after we hopefully discuss the organization issue below. — V = I * R  (talk to Ω) 22:39, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Organization
I've been downplaying the website slightly in the article, so far. It's not that I dislike the site or anything, but the organization that you guys have seems more important then just the site. Just looking at it all, it seems to me that the site is just the front-end of the organization, with all of the data located on the site being the real "work product".

The question there though is, how accurate is that view? I don't see anything about registering RabbitEars as an actual organization of any kind (corporation, non-profit, or whatever), but if it has that info would be important to have. If you haven't registered it at all, you'll probably want to seriously consider doing so, simply to protect yourself and all of your contributors. I know that doing that will probably be a pain, but it will likely be a requirement going forward anyway. — V = I * R  (talk to Ω) 21:52, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


 * No formal organization, though I know that's probably coming in the future. I don't know enough about it, really.
 * Beyond that, I would tend to agree, though the front-end has received just as much work as the back-end. Just in the last few days I added a nifty TSID page that extracts data already imported from the FCC database and displays it in a neat format.  It's not notable, of course, just an example of some of the things I do that are entirely front-end.
 * So, the short answer is "I don't know." See how unhelpful I can be? :)  TripEricson (talk) 22:41, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

READS Rankings
You would not actually have the full list in the article - you'd simply have the first paragraph. --Cameron Scott (talk) 07:11, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

That template has to go as well - the majority of the references are about DTV locations, I see nothing that saws the ranking system has been accepted as a standard. --Cameron Scott (talk) 07:13, 17 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I know that you're going to AFD the article already, so we'll just wait and see what happens then. Thank you for the input though, you're welcome to help out winth constructive criticism if you'd like. I don't understand what the point is that you're trying to make with the "the majority of the references are about DTV locations" statement. — V = I * R  (talk to Ω) 14:03, 17 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I know that you're going to AFD the article already I wasn't planning to but I can if you like? Maybe next time, you want to see what's in my hand before you try and shit in it? "the majority of the references are about DTV locations" that the references suggest that the site has been linked as a directory of locations I see nothing in the sources that discuss in detail the acceptance of the ranking system, so I would oppose any attempts to use those references as an attempt to get the ranking system accepted on wikipedia. --Cameron Scott (talk) 21:59, 17 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I can't speak for the rankings, but I know my chief concern is that the status of RabbitEars as a "credible source," or whatever the Wikipedia-specific term for it is, has never been established. My hope would be that the various references in the article here establish it as reputable enough to where citations of it can be used on Wikipedia in areas other than the rankings.
 * As you say and as I maintained in the ANI discussion, the site itself (Market Listings and TVGOS Listings in particular) have been cited, but the rankings have not. As such, I understand now where you are coming from with regard to the rankings and those are not of concern to me, but I would like to establish one way or another whether the cite can be used for citations.  TripEricson (talk) 22:09, 17 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The project itself is all that needs to be established. The ranking themselves are not a source, there a work of the source. Their essentially a tertiary source, so as long as the secondary RabbitEars source is usable (which is established by this article), then the material which the source developed (READS rankins, in this case) can then be utilized, as long as there is appropriate attribution to go with them. We were using Nielson ratings before the takedown notice, for example, because Nielson is a reliable source. They weren't reliable because of their DMA's, the DMA's were simply one of their pieces of work which we were using on Wikipedia. READS fulfills that role in the place of DMA's.
 * Regardless, I've never expected this to go smoothly. Cameron and others started making an issue of this at AN/I, so I wouldn't expect them to give up on it. Him and others will see keeping this out of Wikipedia as some sort of validation of the views that they first expressed in the AN/I, so I've known from the beginning of this that there was going to be an AFD over it, and the innocent act and insults aren't going to distract from the obvious POV that is being pushed here. At least this way we're getting some of the obligatory insults out of the way first. — V = I * R  (talk to Ω) 22:27, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

COI tag (August 2023)
Editor who created the page also created the site. ~TPW 17:43, 1 August 2023 (UTC)