Talk:Genius (company)

Hip hop Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hip hop, a collaborative effort to build a useful resource for and improve the coverage of hip hop on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.Hip hopWikipedia:WikiProject Hip hopTemplate:WikiProject Hip hopHip hop articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

New York City Low‑importance

	New York City portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York City, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New York City-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York CityWikipedia:WikiProject New York CityTemplate:WikiProject New York CityNew York City articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Websites: Computing Mid‑importance

	This article is part of WikiProject Websites, an attempt to create and link together articles about the major websites on the web. To participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.WebsitesWikipedia:WikiProject WebsitesTemplate:WikiProject WebsitesWebsites articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Computing (assessed as Low-importance).

Reference works C‑class (inactive)

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Reference works, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Reference worksWikipedia:WikiProject Reference worksTemplate:WikiProject Reference worksReference works articles
C	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.

This article was nominated for deletion on 16 November 2011 (UTC). The result of the discussion was no consensus.

The Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use require that editors disclose their "employer, client, and affiliation" with respect to any paid contribution; see WP:PAID. For advice about reviewing paid contributions, see WP:COIRESPONSE.

karmaclub (talk · contribs) has been paid by 3QDigital on behalf of Genius.com. Their editing has included contributions to this article. This user has been banned and may therefore be reverted on sight, per WP:REVERTBAN.

Individuals with a conflict of interest, particularly those representing the subject of the article, are strongly advised not to directly edit the article. See Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. You may request corrections or suggest content here on the Talk page for independent editors to review, or contact us if the issue is urgent.

Untitled[edit]

"10 days later, after removing links in violation of Google's Quality Guidelines, Rap Genius partially recovered from their penalty.[10] In fact, some opinions discussed how well the penalty process served Rap Genius' Search Engine authority, as the aftermath showed dozens of fresh incoming links from online magazines and a rise in people searching Rap Genius in Google" This last point, the rise in people searching for RapGenius despite its penalty from Google, should have a link referring to the "Streisand effect" -Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.237.28.59 (talk) 03:08, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd disagree - the Streisand Effect refers to a person (or company) trying to keep some piece of information out of public and that act of concealing resulting in increased scrutiny/exposure from the internet. What Rap Genius did was different; they were gaming Google's algorithm by inserting text/links that juked their search relevance and when Google caught on to the scheme they changed their algorithm to punish Rap Genius and discourage other sites from doing the same practice. So this is more "there's no such thing as bad publicity" than the Steisand Effect. The users who came to Rap Genius after their bad press were not trying to see irrelevant links/text, they were just going to site as a result of hearing about them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.46.159.170 (talk) 15:09, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I dunno how to source this[edit]

Their slogan was [this](http://genius.com/43948) for a while but how do i put that in the page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Isitmyself2 (talk • contribs) 02:16, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's a joke and not quite sure if it complies with wp:significance, if you really want to cite it just add a citation with the ref tag.... Jakesyl (talk) 20:56, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reverts[edit]

@Patrossey: I have reverted edits by the Patrossey. To better explain the reasons, the edits were not sourced by third party, reliable sources, had POV issues, and also reeked of WP:FANCRUFT. Users were heavily listed and do not appear to be notable at all. Apparition¹¹ ^Complaints/Mistakes 01:28, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Genius (website). 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/20120616115434/http://rapgenius.com/posts/Rapexegesis-com-becomes-rapgenius-com to http://rapgenius.com/posts/Rapexegesis-com-becomes-rapgenius-com

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) 07:16, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Something is off here.[edit]

I can't help feeling that something is just not right about this article. I'm thinking of trying a complete rebuild from scratch over the next few days. Any thoughts on this would be welcome. bd2412 T 12:57, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]