Talk:Grammarly/Archive 2

Outdated Information

Hello, friends!

I'm on the marketing team at Grammarly and was wondering if I could encourage anyone to update outdated information on this page. As I understand, directly contributing on behalf of Grammarly would violate the guidelines.

Here is a partial list, in no particular order, of things in the article that are no longer accurate:

• Logo
• Screenshot
• Alexa rank
• Number of users
• Beyond containing a number of factual inaccuracies, the "Features" section is also missing information about the browser extensions that most of our users now use

What would be the best way for me to update the information above without violating any guidelines? Thank you in advance for your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nik.grammarly (talk • contribs) 01:29, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Glad to see you are no longer hiring someone to attempt this while they try to keep their business relationship with you a secret.

As for images, wade through MOS:IMAGES to find how to properly upload and accredit replacement images.

For other content, provide reliable sources. Note there are a large number of restrictions on what can be referenced from Grammarly's publications, mostly outlined in the note I left on your talk page. --Ronz (talk) 14:20, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your help, Ronz. I'll create a new Edit Request below. Nik.grammarly (talk) 00:25, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Requested Edits - Images

1. Logo is out of date. Add new logo (download here).
2. Screenshot is out of date. Add current product screenshot (download here).

As mentioned in the section above, I am requesting this edit because I am employed at Grammarly. Please let me know if I'm not adhering to any COI guidelines. I have submitted the logo and screenshot for upload here and here. Nik.grammarly (talk) 01:03, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

I think these types of edits, uploading the images and replacing them in the article, should be fine for you to do yourself. While I don't know much about our image policies and guidelines, I suggest you at least upload the images. If there's a problem, we'll work it out. --Ronz (talk) 19:27, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

It appears that the logo and screenshot have been updated. Altamel (talk) 22:07, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

References

Proposed edits

I'm proposing the following changes to the Recognitions section in order to update and make it current. Please let me know who would be willing to check this over and make the edits to the page in the proper way. Also, note that reference 1 and 2 are not part of this proposed edit. Nik.grammarly (talk) 01:52, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Please note the previous discussions on awards. Nominations and non-notable awards are rarely due mention unless we have independent, reliable, secondary sources noting them. --Ronz (talk) 15:11, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

I understand and will look for such sources for the most notable.Nik.grammarly (talk) 04:48, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Awards and recognition

In TopTenReviews' 2013 Online Grammar Check Review, Grammarly won the Gold Award and received a rating of 8.88. Also that year, the company was named among the 100 Fastest Growing Private Companies by the San Francisco Business Times, was ranked 344 on the Inc. 500 listing, was selected as a winner of the Red Herring Top 100 North America Award, and was nominated as Best Web Services & Applications Website in the 17th Annual Webby Awards.

In 2014, the company was ranked 55 on Deloitte's Technology Fast 500, a ranking of the 500 fastest growing technology, media, telecommunications, life sciences and clean technology companies in North America. Also that year, Grammarly was runner-up at the 7th Annual Crunchies Awards by TechCrunch in the Best Bootstrapped Startup category.

In 2015, Grammarly was again named a finalist in the Best Bootstrapped Startup category at the 8th Annual Crunchies Awards.

References

Requested edits

I would like to request that the Alexa ranking be updated as it has been over a year and a half. Also, if possible, could the sentence referring to the "thumbs up" or "thumbs down" under Features be omitted? That is no long an option from Grammarly. Nik.grammarly (talk) 04:54, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

What happened with the thumbs up/down feature as we documented it? I cannot find it in the reference. Has the review been updated? If so, is there an archive of the previous review? Doesn't it seem questionable that a respected review source isn't properly referencing their own reviews (providing review dates, identifying previous reviews)? --Ronz (talk) 17:49, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Go ahead and update the Alexa info yourself. It shouldn't be a problem. --Ronz (talk) 17:53, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

I would like to request that "Spanish" be removed from the first line since the product only edits English at the moment. Sources: https://www.pcsteps.com/3613-improve-grammar-spelling-english/ and https://www.grammarly.com/faq#toc0 --Michael.Grammarly (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:53, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Done. It isn't verified by the first reference, and not mentioned elsewhere in the article. I suspect the verification was unknowingly removed at sometime in the past. --Ronz (talk) 16:12, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Features list is incomplete (synonyms & definitions)

The article doesn't mention that it's possible to display synonyms and definitions of marked words. Isn't this more or less the core feature of this extension? Because there are tons of spellcheckers - actually afaik most browsers have inbuilt spellcheckers now. Not sure if there's a specific name for this kind of hover-and-show-definition thing but please add the missing info.

--Fixuture (talk) 23:02, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Sources? --Ronz (talk) 23:10, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

@Ronz: For what? Also this is a talk page - I don't necessarily need sources here. I used the extension in my browsers so I know its features and I found a spellchecker in my browsers. --Fixuture (talk) 00:08, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

If we had sources for what you're discussing, it would be easier to determine what should be included in the article. --Ronz (talk) 01:36, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Company versus product

Just wanted to point out that this article is about a product, and the infobox is for a company. I would split but there don't appear to be enough articles about the company to build a solid article on - everything is about the product.Timtempleton (talk) 22:55, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

I propose to switch to {{infobox software}}. DES ^(talk) 00:34, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

FTR, this switch has since been made. -- Beland (talk) 01:42, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Grammarly. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130119093755/http://www.thehindu.com/life-and-style/metroplus/article2473074.ece to http://www.thehindu.com/life-and-style/metroplus/article2473074.ece
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130127164059/http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/opinon/2012/01/137_102304.html to http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/opinon/2012/01/137_102304.html

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 01:59, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Free?

Maybe I am misusing Wikipedia (as a product check) or Grammarly (as a free grammar check). I don't know. After seeing so many ads for Grammarly, I went to the Wik article on this product. After reading the article, I decided it was legit and installed it. But when I try to use it, the only option I see is to use either a limited-time free version or to rent the product. That to me is not "free." Yet the Wik article says it can be added as a free feature on Firefox. Kdammers (talk) 15:15, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

FTR, the article no longer says the software is free. -- Beland (talk) 01:43, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Would somebody please just delete this stupid article?

Looking at the company's website makes it obvious that their entire business model is bait-and-switch, and using misleading marketing techniques.

Reading this "talk" page is so depressing, that people are wasting so much time arguing about whether this underhanded company should be allowed to misuse Wikipedia or not.

And they are misusing Wikipedia - their website links to this article as a part of their marketing.

So would someone with sufficient authority please simply delete this article and get it over and done with. It demeans the whole concept of Wikipedia being an authoritative source of information.

RenniePet (talk) 08:53, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

FTR, deletion was later proposed and decided against at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grammarly (2nd nomination). -- Beland (talk) 01:45, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Product list and pricing

I have added some more information about the Grammarly tool, and some information about the products that Grammarly, Inc. currently offers. I added pricing information, along with citations, and also added a list of products Grammarly, Inc. offers. Rmj1001 (talk) 16:37, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia.

I've removed the new information. Wikipedia is not a venue for advertising and promotion. --Ronz (talk) 16:55, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Pricing

Re [1] and the edit summary, There's nothing "promotional" about mentioning a product's pricing -- especially when it is so expensive. Pricing is basic, encyclopedic information. I have no connection to the company; I just added the info after wasting time searching for the information which the article lacked. Please do not delete it again.

Yes, it is promotional. The source looks promotional and unreliable as well. This article has a long history of undisclosed paid editing, so please be aware that promotional edits may be viewed from that perspective.

Wikipedia:Price information states, An article should not include product pricing or availability information unless there is an independent source and a justified reason for the mention. Encyclopedic significance may be indicated if mainstream media sources (not just product reviews) provide commentary on these details instead of just passing mention. Prices and product availability can vary widely from place to place and over time. Wikipedia is not a price comparison service to compare the prices of competing products, or the prices and availability of a single product from different vendors or retailers. --Ronz (talk) 16:56, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Ronz, your suggestion that I might have lied about having no connection to the company is offensive, and unwarranted. I do not do undisclosed paid editing.

Including the (expensive!) pricing information is informational, not "promotional," and removing it makes the article less useful. Pricing information is not forbidden on Wikipedia, and many articles mention product prices. In fact, Wikipedia has whole articles about product pricing.

Including prices does not make this article resemble a "price comparison service," because there are no comparisons with other products. Also, since there are no "different vendors or retailers" for this product, we needn't worry that the prices might "vary widely from place to place and over time."

However, I understand your concern about referencing an article which might be disguised promotional material. So I'll just restore the pricing information and drop the dubious reference. Some of the references already in the article also mention the pricing, so I'll just reference one of them, instead.

Hmmm... I see that there are actually two references to the same TechCrunch article. So I'm going to consolidate them. That article does contain the pricing information, so I'll just reference that article for the prices. I trust that will satisfy your concerns. NCdave (talk) 17:48, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Please redact your comments directed at me, and remember to focus on content, policies, and sources. --Ronz (talk) 18:12, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Please stop the edit-warring. The TechCrunch ref appears to only provide passing mention, which is not sufficient according to the quoted policy. --Ronz (talk) 18:59, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Ronz, there is no basis for your offensive suggestion that I did undisclosed paid editing. I'll happily redact my response to it if you redact your unwarranted accusation.

I addressed your concern about the source for the pricing information, and cited a better one. The unusually high price of this PC software product is clearly noteworthy, which might be why the Tech Crunch article includes the prices. The other (2017) Tech Crunch article also mentioned the price, as did the Fast Company article, both of the PC Mag articles, both of the Venture Beat articles, the Yahoo News article, and the Kyiv Post article. The reason all those publications mention the price is that it is notable.

Do you want me to add all those other references to the Pricing section? I think one should be enough, don't you?

PC Mag says, "Grammarly isn't cheap, either, at $29.95 per month, $59.95 per quarter, or $139.95 per year. But when you're on deadline with an important piece of writing that you know could be better, it may be money well spent." That's not just "passing mention," that's commentary.

Now, will you please stop reverting my constructive edits? NCdave (talk) 00:59, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

This article has a long history of undisclosed paid editing, so please be aware that promotional edits may be viewed from that perspective. Don't take this personal, it's simply a fact about the editing history here. Please redact your comments.

We disagree on the pricing. Those are all passing mention. Please stop edit-warring. --Ronz (talk) 01:06, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Ronz, whatever this article's history, I am sure you know that I am not an undisclosed paid editor, because, for one thing, I've never edited this article before.

You also know that I'm not a new account, set up for such a purpose, since I know you know that I've been around Wikipedia for awhile, since you've interacted with me in the past. On another article's Talk page you accused me of "promotion of conspiracy theories," and were admonished by a third editor to "please refrain from speciously accusing fellow Wikipedia editors of 'promotion of conspiracy theories.' That is a violation of WP:CIVIL."

Ronz, I'm trying to work with you. I changed my addition to the article to address your concern about the source that I cited, and I've showed you ample proof that the information is noteworthy. But you seem uninterested in compromise. You just keep deleting it, entirely -- and then accusing me of edit-warring!

How about, instead of just reflexively reverting, you suggest some sort of compromise. Perhaps there's a better place in the article, to include this information? NCdave (talk) 01:38, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Please redact your comments and WP:FOC --Ronz (talk) 02:30, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

WP:NOT says, Wikipedia is not a place to hold grudges, import personal conflicts, carry on ideological battles, or nurture prejudice, hatred, or fear. Making personal battles out of Wikipedia discussions goes directly against our policies and goals. and Every user is expected to interact with others civilly, calmly, and in a spirit of cooperation. Do not insult, harass, or intimidate those with whom you have a disagreement. Rather, approach the matter intelligently and engage in polite discussion. --Ronz (talk) 02:30, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

I think focusing on content would be a very fine idea. That is what I have been trying to do. So, how about you stop your accusations, assume good faith, and, in a spirit of compromise, focus on improving the article?

It's not like I've been unwilling to work with you, or compromise. Your first complaint was that the reference I cited was "poor, promotional." So I changed it, to address your concern -- I trust to your satisfaction. If you're still not happy with it, then please suggest a compromise. NCdave (talk) 05:14, 25 January 2020 (UTC)