This page is for discussing the contents of Elizabeth's Pet Sitting.
Comments:
Note: You must be logged in to add comments
This page is not up to wiki standards and needs cleaning up.
* some single-sentence paragraphs are coded as separate sections
* page has many unnecessary images (one or two should be enough)
* arrangement of images interferes with reading of text
* text itself reads like an ad for the business instead of a description of the business
* "First Aid" section is incomplete, does not cite references, and does not relate to the business description
That'd be a good start. Any volunteers?
Also: How should the wiki deal with a business page that is largely created and designed by the business owner rather than by the community at large? To what extent does the business owner have a right to use said page for self-promotion? This issue has come up several times in the past, and clarification and a general policy would be a good idea.
Major overhaul. Any thoughts?
The concern I have is that Elizabeth was using the photos area to provide people with photos of their pets while they were away. That seems like something she ought to be able to do — it's cute and useful — so maybe that section should stay with a better tagline? —PhilipNeustrom
-
It doesn't really match any other wiki pagetype. It's one thing to have some example photos, some should likely stay (take your pick of ones with her in'em)...but to keep dozens of pictures so that the owners can see them, that's the kind of use you'd get out of a personal website.
-
That's fine, but it belongs on a personal page (or MySpace, or her own website, or whatever), not a business page. The pictures were flooding the article. A business page usually doesn't need more than one photo. —BarnabasTruman
-
I think it's fine to rewrite the text (as it has been done — thanks Barnabas) and delete many photos — but I think that limiting the page to one is unnecessarily draconian. I've seen other business pages with more than one picture. I'm not sure what the ideal number is, but perhaps a small handful (3-4-5 ?) would do the trick. By the way, EB has made it clear that she does see this page as a temporary measure until she gets her own page, which is part of the problem. Seems like she doesn't really "get" the idea that it's a wiki page. —CovertProfessor
I don't see what all the controversy is about, frankly. Granted, some wiki pages warrant cleanup, but who's to say what the standards SHOULD be for a Pet Sitting page? Is there a Pet Sitting template that future Pet Sitting pages should adhere to? Or aren't there more important things for the wiki to attend to? —GeoffJohnson
-
It's a business page; why would we need a separate template for pet sitting pages? As for more important things... good idea; I'll turn off the intarweb and get some work done.
Honestly, I don't like where this is going and it smacks of a double standard. Pages we like are ignoring these so-called rules ("wiki standards" ... are you serious?) while pages of problem users / businesses get the "bad cop" treatment. Honestly, what is so bad about letting Elizabeth post a pic of every pet she has ever sat? What makes you own this page any more than she does? —VladLoscutoff
I am glad to receive support from people and would like to comment on recent changes. I agree that the photos were an important part of my pet sitting as clients love to see their photos on the pet sitting page. Also the range of pictures shows my experience with animals and such. People were always telling me that the pictures were one of the number one reasons that they used my services and now there are no longer there. Many of my clients have recently emailed me about the changes asking me whats going on . I told them i am in the process of creating a site for my business and to stay tuned ,but i think that wiki is a resource and pics were a major selling point for me. I think a templaate would be a good idea if anyone is worried about format and such and for now i will just wait and see what happens before I PERSONALLY MAKE ANY CHANGES OR REVERT TO OLD VERSIONS. Thanks for the rewrite of the description(that was very helpful) Elizabeth Barthel
-
Elizabeth, it makes sense to show a representive picture for the things that you do (1 cat, 1 dog, etc.). For the remainder, why don't you link to a
![[WWW]](http://wikispot.org/wiki/eggheadbeta/img/sycamore-www.png)
flickr account? The nice thing about flickr is that you can organize your pics into certain groups (e.g., cats, dogs, exotics, etc.). Plus, you don't have to deal with the hassle of a full website, it's nicely organized to begin with, and you can still rely on customer feedback on the wiki. —CraigBrozinsky
-
Since when is a photo of one's pet the most important part of a pet-sitting service? Is this pet-sitting or pet photography? —BarnabasTruman
-
Seeing the pictures shows the business in "action," so to speak. It gives pet owners an idea of the service they can expect (for example, that Elizabeth will be out playing fetch with your dog). Yes, that can be described in words, but in this case, I do think a picture is a thousand words; people are very concerned about their pets and it is comforting to see someone who appears to care. (To repeat myself, I do think there were too many photos before, but now there are too few). —CovertProfessor
I agree that the text should be rewritten, but simply because it was poorly written before. Improving the text of an entry is pretty clearly a Good Thing. As for the other discussion here, it should first be noted that there is no "wiki standard"... but there are editing conventions in use on the wiki. There are plenty of exceptions, but even without creating an exception, I see no reason to not have a gallery of pets here. There are galleries on several event entries, and even some businesses have galleries of their employees or services. It made this entry stand out, but not stand out poorly. The writing on it did make it stand out poorly, but that's a different issue and seems to have been resolved. The only question I now have is "Is there a reason not to have an organized, thumbnailed gallery of pets?" Maybe I'm missing an obvious reason, but there are other entries that have galleries, and if they really weigh the entry down through sheer mass, they can be broken off to sub-entries, a la the comment sections on some of the restaurants. — JabberWokky
Later: I should probably have done that in two edits... I did a markup cleanup (table used as list to a real list), and added the photos at 120px, just to see how they would look. Thoughts? (No, I'm not saying that is even a proposed final version, just kicking it around a bit to see how it would look). —JabberWokky
I like this. This seems like a good compromise. Maybe it's just because I like animals, but the page is a lot more appealing with all those pet photos. GeoffJohnson
-
I thought there were too few photos after the change, but there are too many before and now after JW's re-edit. Like I said in my above comment, choose the pictures that are relevant to the page or her business. The ones with her in them, or the ones with her 'playing fetch' sure, totally. I agree completely with CovertProfessor. But there's well over a dozen pictures just of an animal with nothing else, and apparently just so that the owners can see a picture of their pet. It's nice, but it doesn't belong on the page imo. A relevant gallery or her playing or caring and doing stuff for animals is fine, a gallery of every client (just to be listed) is excessive. -ES
Ok, I deleted 25 pictures. Look at it now. Moved the picture of her doing radiology stuff to her qualifications section to keep the bottom more of the pet gallery style. Only kept photos of her in action, with a couple exceptions (mostly of rarities/oddities - guinea pigs, rats, cat after surgery, etc). There's still 25 pictures on the page, a huge number. Is this version a good compromise? The text was rewritten, the number of pictures was halved, but there's still a ton. The only thing left, imo, is lining them up nicely or evenly sized. -ES
-
Or just link to her website for a full gallery, when it's up. Or as Craig linked to above, even a Flickr account. That's what those are for >.>
-
dwiki is also for community needs...
I believe that there are still too many pics. Maybe cutting it down to 16 in a 4x4 arrangement? -wl
How about keeping the "illustrative" ones here, and then restoring *all* the gallery ones (i.e., have all the photos attached to the entry active), get them the way we want, and then move the entire gallery to a subentry with a link to it from this entry? You get the full gallery with all the animals if you're interested, but if you're just looking to browse through and compare pet sitters, you don't get a image heavy page load (unless you actually want to see them all). (The only reason I suggest in doing it in this order is so that they are sorted on the page before they are moved and hammer the RC, so there aren't trailing ones being moved back and forth or resorting post copy). —JabberWokky
I like EdWins' edits, keeping the pics that are relevant to the business, and I am also OK with JabberWocky's suggestion to restore the others on a separate page (I don't care either way). I think the main page is much better now, though. —CovertProfessor
If there has ever been a good example of another entry with a similar gallery, Bike Church is it. Ministers there versus those ministered to on this entry. —JabberWokky
