Talk:Syncplicity

Notability Discussion
Why shouldn't we have this article? This service is quite notable. They started it about a year ago and nearly every software/tech blog has written about them. The cited sources are not from Syncplicity alone. I don't know whether the language of the article looks like advt. In that case, a different tag can be placed till I (or anyone else) cleans up the article.

Mugunth ( ping me!!!, contribs ) 06:31, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Google throws atleast 50,000 hits for the word "Syncplicity" Mugunth ( ping me!!!, contribs ) 06:35, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Reviews
I've retitled the "Rating and Notable comments" section simply "Reviews," and corrected the grammer, and added "2008" to both reviews.

I also substituted a direct quote from the PC World article for the slightly confusing paraphrase. I made it clear that it was PC World's reviewer, rather than the magazine as a whole, which called Syncplicity "my top pick." The reviewer's use of the word "my" (which I included in the quote) makes it clear that he was speaking for himself, and not necessarily for the magazine.

Also, I clarified the date on which the beta Mac version was withdrawn (it was July 2009).

Regarding the LifeHacker poll, I'm a bit uncomfortable leaving it in there, since it said, "The biggest drawback to Syncplicity right now is its lack of a Mac client, but one is in the works and slated for September." That was referring to Sept. 2008, and the Mac client was withdrawn the following summer. So it seems likely that the LifeHacker mini-review of Syncplicity (which presumably influenced their HiveFive reader poll) would have been less positive had it been done after the July 9, 2009 announcement that that Mac version was being withdrawn.

What does everyone think about this? Should the LifeHacker poll result be retained in the article despite this issue? Or should it be removed as potentially misleading? NCdave (talk) 07:09, 14 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Oops, I see that they again have a Mac version in beta test, so I withdraw my question. (I've also updated the "Platform support" section.) NCdave (talk) 07:27, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Difference from competitor
I made several edits to the section entitled "Difference from competitors" which I retitled "File Synchronization Services & Competition" which I believe presents a more neutral viewpoint. I replaced one of the reference links that was from Syncplicity's own blog with a link from VentureBeat since the latter is a more neutral source but is able to establish the same point. I struck the language "The main difference from its competitors" given its poor word choice and questionable neutrality and added references to similar services that entered the market around the same time, namely DropBox, LiveMesh, and SugarSync.

I concur that this article should remain on Wikipedia given the rising importance of cloud technologies and the amount of traffic that Syncplicity's brand name nets. Therefor I think this article should continue to be revised to improve its notability and to bring it into a more neutral viewpoint. To this end, sources other than Syncplicity's on blog should be used and more references about the Facebook, PicNik et al syncing should be added. --Brendanpbehan (talk) 00:52, 15 February 2011 (UTC) — Preceding comment added by Brendanpbehan (talk • contribs) 00:43, 15 February 2011 (UTC)--Brendanpbehan (talk) 00:50, 15 February 2011 (UTC)