Talk:The Million Dollar Homepage

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article was nominated for deletion on 1 October 2005. The result of the discussion was no consensus (thus keep). An archived record of this discussion can be found here.

Contents 1 Analysis missing 2 total income 3 knockoff sites 4 spam template 5 The jump on the bandwagon 6 Creator comments on spinoffs 7 The latest craze is LinkSpammer

[edit] Analysis missing

A central part of what encyclopedias are about is this: helping us understand our world. What's missing here is analysis (and of course I'm not calling for original research contrary to Wikipedia's nature but based on references which have done this) of HOW and WHY this worked despite bazillions of other sites trying to make money failing. Was it just blind luck? Why would an advertiser spend hundreds of dollars on a site no one has heard of when they can spend the same (or LESS) on e.g. google or well known/established sites? What really happened? Did he hype it (e.g. get a friend to pay $200 and work that into his press release as bait to get others to do the same saying "See, some folks are buying!" etc) or what? --71.240.255.227 01:41, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually this is exactly what Wikipedia is not about, it would be original research which has no place here. Mallocks 21:31, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] total income

Is there any reliable source that states the author has earned the million dollars? The article lists no sources and I've so far heard this hoax(?) only from the owner of the million dollar homepage. I've seen him winning a couple tens of thousands on ebay for the last pixels, but nothing else. If no reliable sources are provided, I'll add a chapter that states the fact of not having any facts on his earnings. Kirils 07:11, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Can't see any objections, accepting modifications. Kirils 18:29, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I hope Alex blog about his real revenue from pixels :) Cybertrader8888 14:42, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

It's no hoax.

Furthermore, Alexa and Google links information are never accurate. My website receives 13,000+ unique visitors a month, and its Alexa rank is in the 1,500,000 area. Back when it received a mere 6,000 unique visitors a month, Alexa ranked the site at 350,000 or so.

Explanation? Yes: Alexa is faulty nonsense.

There are literally dozens of sites that link to mine, but according to Google, there are three. How they come up with this information is anyone's guess, but it's all (again) patent nonsense.

I paid for space on Alex' site, and several other people known to me did as well. Right there, you have US$15,000 that I can tell you actually occurred, and for small ads, mind you.

Furthermore, when I placed my small ad on TMDHP, traffic to my site skyrocketed. To this day, I still receive approximately 1,000 visitors a month from the page, with the web logs to prove it.

Wikipedia is hardly a place for accurate and professionally collected information, but the Million Dollar page is anything but a hoax.

I think what most concerns me about your rant is that you use terms like "conned" as if you have hard facts which you've verified by some means (which you have not, and could not, since the site is 100% authentic).

You are openly speculating, with no grounds for a claim at all. I would suggest you stop trying to force into the world what you dearly wish to be the truth. It's childish, and though it would probably make you feel better for not having the ingenuity or cleverness for having come up with something similar, yelling that Alex is a con-artist is nothing more than brazen and unfounded slander. I know it hurts to see people move ahead of us, but to allow such pain to slip into delusional claims of trickery is somewhat disturbing. Juniper berry 18:16, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] knockoff sites

The list of knockoff sites would be much more useful if they linked to the sites themselves, rather than nonexistant articles. I'm guessing none are notable enough for their own articles at this time. Everdred 04:16, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

I'd say the list of knockoff sites would be better without the Wikilinks. None of them are notable, and beyond the concept (which is adequately covered by the primary site) none are actually particularly interesting either. I mean, what's interesting about a site whose main gimmick is to steal some student's idea, usually in the hope of making a fast buck? Any of the Wikilinks that turn blue are almost bound to end up at AfD. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 18:20, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

What you said of course is your POV. FWIW, I'll have to wait and see. -- Perfecto  19:50, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

I have spent some time trawling around and this is what I've found:

• most of the million pixel knockoffs are get-rich-quicks
• there are a lot of them! a list is unlikely to be complete (and pretty much pointless anyway, as beyond the fact of there being several there is nothing more of an encyclopaedic nature)
• many of them have only a few pixels filled in, even ones which have been online for some time
• the signup rate at the original is apparently dropping off, as is traffic at their featured site

in short, this shows every sign of being a fad which is in decline. On my view (yes, my POV) there is nothing encyclopaedic to add beyond the fact of there being several imitators,and that they appear to be enjoying considerably less success. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 21:22, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

If you have sources, not your own observations, saying "that they appear to be enjoying considerably less success," then we have reason to remove these red wikilinks. If no, I say wait some more. -- Perfecto  00:16, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

It depends how you define sources. I visited about 20 "million pixel" knockoffs, and most of them had 95% or more unsold. In at least one case the majority of pixels filled in had been given away as a promo competition. Although this is original research, so is the list! It has the same degree of validity. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 18:35, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] spam template

Does it make sense to have the spam template up, even when there are not currently any spam commercial links on the page? --Allen 05:55, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

No it doesn't. I'll remove it. --CygnusPius 09:55, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The jump on the bandwagon

It December 2005 (UTC)

If you mail me a check for ten thousand dollars I'll send you my guaranteed proven system. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 22:16, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't think any site will be able to mimic the success of The Million Dollar Homepage simply because the REAL one is the one that is talked about. When you see a CNN article on the million dollar page, this is where you are brought. The other spinoffs dont have that same value because there are countless duplicates, but only one real original page. - Stoph 22:08, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Creator comments on spinoffs

Flattered, but they won't make a million

[edit] The latest craze is LinkSpammer

Talk pages should only be used to discuss how to improve their corresponding articles. Please stop trying to use Wikipedia to increase your web traffic. —Keenan Pepper 19:19, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Yup. I obfuscated the spammer's site to make that point. Guy (Help!) 13:24, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Anyway external links from talk pages now carry a rel=" ". 131.111.8.98 03:05, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

uhmmm