Talk:Snagajob

Fair use rationale for Image:SAJ Logo Orange dot.gif
Image:SAJ Logo Orange dot.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 10:11, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Music on the commercial?
It sounds a bit familiar, simmilar to Andy Partridge maybe? --Morbid-o 04:19, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

"Founded in 2000"? In what sense is that true?
These comments are based on the 08:57, 4 January 2017‎ version of the article [about] "Snagajob", ...which was the current version of that article "as of" the day when these comments were written.

The second sentence of the lede begins by saying "Founded in 2000". Is that even true? (in some sense?) When I did a search (e.g., a "Ctrl-F" -type "FIND" command) for the character string "1999" within this article, then ... it turned up 4 places: and
 * two in categories [mentioning "established in 1999" or otherwise relating to when Snagajob was "started"],
 * one "1999" in the "" template [instance] -- (right next to the word "Founded"!) --
 * one in the body of the text, mentioning an event ("the website's launch") on "October 17, 1999".

Is it me, or is there some disconnect here? IMHO, unless those (multiple) "1999" instances are all false /slash "misleading", well... then either that "2000" (in the second sentence of the article) is BOGUS, or else ... at least, someone may have -- (as the Lucy/Desi [apochryphal? ] line would have it) -- some 'splaining to do.

Any comments? --Mike Schwartz (talk) 16:46, 14 February 2017 (UTC)