Talk:Geliyoo

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleGeliyoo has been listed as one of the Engineering and technology good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
September 18, 2022Good article nomineeListed
January 5, 2023Good article reassessmentKept
Did You Know
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on October 6, 2022.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that the search engine of Geliyoo was found to be retrieving its results from Google, in contrast to the company's claims of spending 10 million Turkish liras on development?
Current status: Good article

Previous pages[edit]

Before editing this article, it would be useful to know why two previous pages on the subject were deleted Chrismorey (talk) 07:45, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Geliyoo. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:01, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Geliyoo. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:33, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reference Citations and reliable content addition[edit]

Hello fellow editors,

This is to notify and give report that some reliable reference links and reliable content has just been added to the page to make it look more acceptable and meet the standard English Wikipedia policy.

For more clarification, The following changes were made:

  • Added a level two heading as "Projects launched" under which two other level three heading were added.
  • Added some verifiable and notable links as citation to the respective areas

Daxhton (talk) 10:28, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Geliyoo/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Caleb Stanford (talk · contribs) 15:44, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]


GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

I enjoyed reading this article! I think it's in good shape and I would support GA with some edits. The edits I suggest are (1) a few more high-quality references if possible, (2) broader context about the company's size and relevance, e.g. number of employees, revenue, number of users, or other coverage/accredation by other individuals or companies.

  1. Is it well written?
    A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
    B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
  2. Is it verifiable with no original research?
    A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
    B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
    I'm a bit concerned about the references included, mostly "Archived from the original" sources that I don't recognize, other than the NYT link. Is there additional reliable coverage of this topic from "Generally Reliable" designated sources?
    • Which exact ones concern you the most? I've mostly used mainstream Turkish media which have a WP article.
    C. It contains no original research:
    D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
    I think the article should provide additional sourced statements to demonstrate the notability of Geliyoo in context. Context could include, for example, number of employees, revenue, current status of the company (active? profitable?), number of users (either for the company as a whole or for the Geliyoo search engine service), statements by other companies, orgs, or individuals demonstrating notability of the topic or commenting on the controversy.
    • The notability of Geliyoo, per WP:ORGIND, comes from the sources that provide original content about the company, in this case the criticisms. However, I think there were a few statements regarding amount of employees and expected users. Also note that there is a sentence in the article about 150 engineers working on the search engine in 2010, and that the development was halted as of 2021.
     Done Added employee count as of 2013 and expected market shares of 2013 and 2018.
    B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
  4. Is it neutral?
    It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
    Neutral as far as I can tell.
  5. Is it stable?
    It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
  6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
    A couple more images would be nice. Screenshot of the home page?
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
    I think I have to pick pass or fail, suggest pass if the above edits are addressed.
I'm afraid I don't have familiarity with any of the specific sources listed. My comment was about Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources and would like to know if any of the designated known-reliable sources cover Geliyoo. Alternatively, if Wikipedia has a page validating some of the existing Turkish news sources, that would be enough. I have not found any good alternate sources yet through google search. Also, the topic meets notability but the current homepage is blank?? Something should certainly be said about this in the article. Caleb Stanford (talk) 20:23, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
İhlas News Agency, Evrensel, Hürriyet (also Hürriyet Daily News), Vatan, SoL, Cumhuriyet, Yeni Şafak, and Sabah all have an article.
Regarding the blank website, I believe "The development was later halted due to "inadequate technology infrastructure", and a script was used to keep the domain active" (final sentence of the History section) is sufficient to describe that not much is going on at the moment. There aren't any third-party sources reporting on the blank website. Since I've already used a few primary sources in the article, I don't think adding the following text (or something similar) will do much. ~StyyxTalk? 14:59, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
text

As of June 2022, the website of the search engine of Geliyoo is blank.[1]

References

  1. ^ "Anasayfa". Geliyoo. Retrieved 26 June 2022.
  • Caleb Stanford I've uploaded the current logo of the company. Let me know about what you think of the above. ~StyyxTalk? 15:14, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A screenshot captured from an archive of the old version of that webpage such as https://web.archive.org/web/20170119104004/https://www.geliyoo.com/ can be used. Gazozlu (talk) 16:14, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

These are good improvements. Thanks. I also made a pass of some copyedits and I included the sentence above. I've requested a second opinion because I am not experienced with reviewing. Overall, I am not sure if the article currently meets GA. I looked through a few of the sources, I only had time to click on a few.

1. LA weekly source: "https://www.laweekly.com/hakan-atabas-an-entrepreneur-who-teaches-the-world-the-right-way-to-trade/" the entire article reads as self-promotion. Begins "Hakan Atabas is the genius" and the rest of the article goes on to attach just about every possible buzz word to their name. My favorite part is "Geliyoo can be classified as a product of NoSQL, JavaScript, BigData, Hadoop, and many basic constructs"

It's safe to say that the founders have been involved in their fair share of promotional activities; just look at the state of this article a year ago. Most sources you see in that revision are actually bullshit, sometimes not even confirming the statement they "source". They also tried to remove the whole criticism section a few times before the article was protected. Now they claim that Wiki editors are "participating in the defamation of the company" (in an email, not a legit source or announcement). ~StyyxTalk? 18:19, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2. hurriyetdailynews source: https://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/opinion/ersu-ablak/google-as-a-turkish-national-search-engine-108694 an opinion piece that begins "The news went viral". Other than this it seems OK as a primary source (though not independent coverage).

I think the lead could do better to establish notability and to be up-to-date to 2022, though as you said, there isn't good coverage of the current status of the page. That makes me wonder about notability. 52 employees is good, but market share of 0.3% is probably not notable.

plus Added "...but isn't in use as of 2022, and a script is used to keep the domain of Geliyoo active instead" to the lead, minus Removed "Geliyoo expected to have a market share of 0.3% in October 2013". ~StyyxTalk? 18:25, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Caleb Stanford (talk) 16:14, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Quick thing Caleb Stanford, do you believe the issues you raised during the first review (Special:PermaLink/1095133777) are fixed? In other words, do I need to alter some things before the second reviewer arrives or are we just waiting? ~StyyxTalk? 09:58, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, consider the issues in my review resolved! We are now just waiting for a second opinion to independently assess the article. Caleb Stanford (talk) 16:46, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think the article sources are good. I am concerned about the language used in the article including the lead. It may be too technical (using programmer jargon) to give the average reader a proper understanding of what actually happened. To be specific phrases such as "script is used to keep the domain of Geliyoo active instead" in the lead is unclear.--Gazozlu (talk) 16:21, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm quite tech unsavvy too, but I don't think there is an easier way to word ir. I have added a wikilink to Scripting language to make it more understandable. ~StyyxTalk? 18:06, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think generally that non-tech sources refer to these things as "program". So just; a program was used to keep the domain active.
However it is still not really clear how a program can keep a domain active or what it even means to keep a domain active and what really is the point of keeping the domain active, and this is not become clear in the body of the article.
Also maybe its too much to say that it has been accused of being propaganda in the introduction as this is based on only the opinion expressed in one opinion piece-article. Gazozlu (talk) 23:55, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also parts of the article are written like the service is still active and working in some way. Gazozlu (talk) 23:59, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I don't have a lot of knowledge of this, so Caleb Stanford may know more, but if I'm not mistaken, they need to keep the domain (geliyoo.com) active so they remain the owners of it. If they don't do anything, someone else might just pick it up to do something else. ~StyyxTalk? 10:50, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Second opinion[edit]

I see the article still has the request for second opinion listed; I see some recent conversations, but it doesn't look as if anyone has picked up the second opinion so I am happy to provide one. Caleb, I think you just want validation that your review is sufficiently thorough? I'll take an independent look at the article, and see if I come up with anything else, and that will give you feedback. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:05, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • The red and white former logo doesn't have a usable source listed on the image page so I went back through archive.org and I can't find any pages using that old logo. What's the evidence this is really their old logo? And I think the arrangement of the letters on the two-tone red background does rise to a copyrightable level, so once you have a source I think you need to move it to en-wiki and add a FUR.
Removed completely. I haven't found anything about it even in the archives of their IT website, which has used the current logo from 2013 onwards. The funny thing is, the uploader of the file is one of the founders.
  • What makes sosyalsosyal.com a reliable source? This page implies they will publish material sent to them by members of the public.
That page says that you can contact them at [email protected] if you want to, you know, advertise. The news article I've used is written by an actual author, Aslıhan Kaya, who is described at the very bottom. I've removed the source nevertheless since I can't find much about the website, and considering it's down... yeah.
  • "The search engine had a major update in 2017, but isn't in use as of 2022, and a script is used to keep the domain of Geliyoo active instead." Suggest "The search engine had a major update in 2017, but as of 2022 is no longer available." Can we say when it went offline? And the fact that someone is hanging onto the the domain isn't relevant enough to be worth mentioning.
Replaced.
  • "it used a ready script to retrieve and show results from Google for its search engine": what is a "ready" script?
A script that is sold on the internet and can be bought by anyone. I'm not sure what the correct word is, or alternatively I might reword the sentence to imply that they bought it.
Suggest giving a bit more detail, as you do in the body: "it used a script available on the Internet for $15 to retrieve and show results from Google for its search engine". Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:40, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Clarified lead.
  • The Hurriyet source used for the "150 all-Turkish engineers" announcement has a note saying "In the Ankara news section of Hurriyet.com.tr, the Ankara news sent by DHA to its subscribers are automatically compiled. The editors of hurriyet.com.tr did not make any editorial intervention in the news of Native Google: 'geliyoo.com' in automatic flow. The relevant agencies are legally responsible for the news content." Which means this is an unreliable source; we need to remove this.
Well, DHA is the Demirören News Agency, which is still reliable. I have changed it in text to reflect this.
OK, since we now attribute the source inline I think that's good enough. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:40, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "which is 7% of the market share": of Turkish language searches? If so we should say so. And do they mean daily searches? Daily unique users?
The source reads: "It is reported that [Geliyoo] will have 7% of the market share in 2018 by having 3 million users", so I assume user count.
What bothers me is that since half of what the company says in its press releases appears to be fabricated, I don't want to imply in the article that the 7% is not from Geliyoo. Could we do something like "The owners of Geliyoo claimed that they expected 3 million users by 2018, which they said would be 7% of the market share"? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:40, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done.
  • The LA Weekly source is marked "Brand Partner" content, which means it's not reliable; it's provided by a third party and did not go through editorial review. This material should be removed.
Removed. That's the only source about the company in the last 4 years, so I can't get a replacement.
What were you using it for? It doesn't appear any content has actually been removed from that part of the article even though the source is gone. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:40, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Only for "The development was later halted due to "inadequate technology infrastructure", and a script was used to keep the domain active".
  • "The search engine uses GeliyooBot/1.0 to analyze 7–10 TeraBytes of data per day": given the later material in the article I would rephrase this as a claim, not a statement of fact. The article in Vatan looks like a regurgitated press release, rather than journalistic research.
It's pretty much a press release, which is done a lot, like a lot a lot, here. Rephrased the sentence.
  • 'Only links which have a picture are shown, as the ones without a picture are "not interesting for the user"': in the source this only referred to the RSS, which actually makes no sense, since in an RSS feed the user expects to control what they see. It might be an option in the newsfeed because there the aggregator decides what's interesting. Also, I looked at some old newsfeeds on the archive and at least in the feed they did not all have images. If we keep this I would make it a claim, again, rather than stating it as fact -- e.g. "was reported to only include" or something like that; and I would make it "news links" to avoid implying this applied to search results.
Reworded.
  • In the criticism section I would move the Ministry's claim ahead of the comments by Erkara, to keep things chronological.
Swapped.
  • "In 2016, the company announced that they were never able to update the search engine because they didn't have their own data centre, which in turn limited the results shown": I think this is based on "Although it is ready as a software infrastructure, we do not make up-to-date indexing due to the inadequacy of our data center and the lack of a datacenter of our own, geliyoo.com is open and users can search within the data we indexed for only a few tests." in the source. Suggest "In 2016, the company claimed that their search engine did not perform its own indexing because they did not have sufficient computing resources". It seems obvious nonsense, so the details don't matter, and in particular since they say both "we don't have a data centre" and "we have a data centre but it's too small" I think we should abbreviate.
Replaced.

I have not spotchecked the sources yet, because I've suggested several be removed; I'll wait till that's finalized before checking sources against the article text. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:00, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Christie. ~StyyxTalk? 07:34, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Mike for the second opinion review! Caleb Stanford (talk) 20:58, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
All the fixes now look good. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:56, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Earwig shows no issues. Spotchecks:

  • FN 1 cites "Sources from this date onwards claim Hakan Atabaş and Arslan to be the founders instead of Savaş and Arslan." I assume if I look at the later sources I will see Savaş is no longer mentioned, but I don't think that's quite enough for this phrasing. As far as I can tell from the machine translation, the article never says that Atabaş was one of the founders, just that he'd been working on it for ten years. Googling him shows that he does claim elsewhere to be a founder but not in this article, but I can't find that claim in a reliable source. Maybe just say something like "The article says that Arslan developed the search engine with Hakan Atabaş rather than with Savaş, who is not mentioned in press coverage from this point on." Do some of your later cites specifically describe Atabaş as a founder? If so we could make it "The article says that Arslan developed the search engine with Hakan Atabaş rather than with Savaş." and add "Atabaş, rather than Savaş is described as the co-founder of the company in later press coverage." and cite the various later articles that call him a founder.
Mike Christie I've replaced that with a source from Evrensel that was in the article, which says "Geliyoo'nun Kurucusu ve CEO'su Hakan Atabaş ile Kurucusu ve Ar-Ge'si Fatih Arslan'ın..." near the bottom. Interestingly, the Instagram account of Geliyoo (which is linked from their website) does the same. Pretty fucked up company.
Yes they are. Actually that article gives a 2015 date further down so we could say the change starts then. And I do think we have to change the wording a bit; we don't have a source that says "all future references are to Atabaş, rather than Savaş". How about "From 2015, press coverage of Geliyoo began to name Atabaş, rather than Savaş, as Arslan's co-founder"? The Evrensel source supports that, and the reader can see that later references are the same Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:00, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Added and moved to the front of the paragraph for chronological order.
  • FNs 12 & 13 cite "Geliyoo was criticized...when it was discovered that the results seen in the search engine were being retrieved from Google Custom Search using a pre-existing script sold for US$15 on the internet. This caused some commentators to question the claim made by the company to have spent over 10 million Turkish liras in ten years on development". Verified.
  • FN 16 cites "In an opinion piece published on 10 March 2017 in The New York Times, Busra Erkara said that the company "will automatically block websites and content that aren't fit for 'Turkish culture and familial values'", and argued that Geliyoo was a part of the "censorship and propaganda" of the Turkish Government." Verified. It seems Erkara is unaware that the site is just a copy of Google, but since this is an opinion piece in a reliable source, and we present it as such, I think it's OK.
  • FN 10 cites "According to an announcement on Geliyoo's website, a browser to support the search engine is in-development, but the full version has not been released": It's on geliyoobilisim.com, not geliyoo.com, but since the website clearly relates the two companies I think it's OK as is.

Just the item about the founders to fix. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:56, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Last fix is good; passing. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:50, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know nomination[edit]

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by SL93 (talk) 20:17, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(
)
  • ... that the search engine of Geliyoo was found to be retrieving its results from Google, in contrast to the company's claims of spending 10 million Turkish liras on development? Source: Multiple; see article itself.

Improved to Good Article status by Styyx (talk). Self-nominated at 14:14, 18 September 2022 (UTC).[reply]

  • Substantial article, meeting of GA criteria implicates DYK pass. Article was nominated within 7 days of passing GAR. QPQ has been completed. Only ping on Earwigs is for a properly attributed quote. Hook is interesting, short enough for DYK, and supported by a citation in the article; AGF on foreign language source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Morgan695 (talk • contribs)

GA Reassessment[edit]

Geliyoo[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Kept - while participants agree it would be nice if the article were more broad, no evidence of omitted references were found. The other two proposed reasons for a delist are not supported by the WP:GA criteria. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 19:29, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all. I came across this page reading through the engineering and technology GA pages, and think it still may need some work.

  1. Having read the page, I'm not confident the page is broad enough in content. The whole company history is covered in a couple of short paragraphs, and quite a lot of detail of interest is skipped over (ranging from more on the founders, early days, iterations, scaling up etc).
  2. The article could be illustrated, which it currently isn't (and the logo not having the background removed could be fixed to make the page cleaner).
  3. I think more citations would be great too, to illustrate the topic. Possibly use of quotes.

To me, the page feels like it would fit B-class. Would be great to get some community insight. SerAntoniDeMiloni (talk) 21:11, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for the notification. I did the GA review, and I agree it would be nice to have more company history, but I was unable to find evidence that sources had been omitted. The scandals are what seems to have made it newsworthy, and I think it's likely there's little or no other coverage. Lack of coverage of an area doesn't make an article ineligible for GA, so I don't think there's a problem there. That also means more citations are not very likely to be found. Illustrations are not required for GA. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:20, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • So first, I honestly couldn't care if this was delisted. I'm not active here anymore, though having it stay would be nice.
  • For more history, there is nothing to add if you don't want to use paid-for non-RS sources. Several of these were removed during the GAN. As said above, the main reason why this company is known is because of the scandal. There are a few RS from before that, and those are already in the article.
  • A screenshot of the main page was suggested on the GAN, but that's currently blanked. I can't think of anything else to add.
  • Partially the same as the first note: no sources. For quotes—I don't know what you'd want. There are a few quotes from the owners, but I don't see them being really encyclopedic.
So yeah, those are my two cents. ~StyyxTalk? 21:54, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And yes, if anyone was wondering, the whole point of getting this to GA status was to run it on DYK with the criticizing hook. ~StyyxTalk? 21:56, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Geliyoo&oldid=1207377545"