Talk:SoundCloud

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Reads like an Advert

JeremyDjSkeezy 194.72.120.131 (talk) 11:57, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It reads like an advertorial I think because advertorials read off key features and information. Wikipedia articles list practically the same thing. I don't think there is anything that can be done to change the article's tone without it sounding somewhat like an advertorial. SoundCloud is pretty notable in the world of social media but it hasn't generated enough news worthy criticism to balance the article. Element9. TALK 21:10, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It does a bit, but not egregiously so. My main issue would be it needs a go over by a native English speaker. At the moment it reads like it's been written by someone with a good but not native command of the English language. 81.108.180.242 (talk) 17:36, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I second that, imo the introduction reads a lot like a commercial, especially the sentence "Many new artists use SoundCloud as their primary music distribution platform for its wide range of features and large user base". the reference provided for this sentence poorly supports this assertion. More precisely I have a problem with the word "many" (no source) and the "for its wide range of features and large user base", which is not factual at all (unless someone adds a ref to a poll among the artists on SoundCloud which shows indeed that it's the reason why they adopted it!). I added a citation needed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.226.56.1 (talk) 20:33, 26 July 2013 (UTC) Removing the sentence now 134.226.56.1 (talk) 16:14, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I added some citations, plus added a "Criticism" section; hopefully, this balances the article out better. Accordingly, I removed the "Citations needed" template, since there are no more "citation needed" tags left. Ochado (talk) 22:58, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not only that, it reads like an ad pitching to investment firms by people that have never created any files but my, they sure have read their social media (SM) homework. I came after they emailed me, begging, and while I create over an hour of content a day, I don't do SM. Therefore the ad ("College students get 50% off Students can subscribe to SoundCloud Go+ for half the cost.") After reading here I still have no idea how it might be useful, nor what they might charge. & I'm not going to pull out a magnifier, study, nor poke buttons to make sure. Suggest re-arraigning the sections & editing by somebody who actually enjoys it, and is self-aware enough to understand everybody is not in his herd. Goodbye.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CFCE:1EE0:9526:CE09:DA55:DF6F (talk) 07:59, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright infringement

Soundcloud is supposed to be a platform for genuine user-created content, and possibly most of its content is, but it only takes a few searches to find material by The Beatles, Led Zeppelin and others which is clearly not 'user-created' but plain copying. Just wondered if Soundcloud has any systems to detect this, like ContentID on YouTube?86.183.203.169 (talk) 21:33, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, SoundCloud has a Content ID just like YouTube, but it's more strict than YouTube's Content ID. You can upload most copyrighted music without permission on YouTube, but you can't on SoundCloud. If you upload a copyrighted song to SoundCloud, you will get a notification saying it was blocked. However, you can upload some copyrighted songs that aren't in SoundCloud's Content ID. For example, I uploaded the song "The Holy River" by Prince and I didn't get any notifications saying it was blocked so it's fully playable on SoundCloud. If you remix a song, the Content ID will think it's original, however the copyright owners can still report the song as copyright infringement. DBZFan30 (talk) 12:59, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

After reading that, I now better understand what it does than from attempting to read the article. One wonders who would put "finances" and other dreary stuff before "what it is, how it works?" ...and who were they targeting?
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CFCE:1EE0:9526:CE09:DA55:DF6F (talk) 08:09, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Is the distinguish tag for Soundhound needed, or is it actually just advertising on the page of this much more popular service?

Subject says it all. Human fella (talk) 17:59, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article is for SoundCloud, not SoundHound. DBZFan30 (talk) 21:17, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Which was exactly their point. 77.191.212.20 (talk) 15:42, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jargon

"some original users have complained that it is losing its fidelity to artists" - what on earth does this mean? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.147.125.98 (talk) 12:50, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on SoundCloud. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Offline 03:31, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Obsolete statistics

Sources published in 2014 are used to support several statistical claims, including "more than 175 million unique monthly listeners", "content creators upload approximately twelve hours worth of audio every minute", "over half the songs that are uploaded are played within the first 30 minutes", and "90% of all uploaded tracks receive a listen from at least one user". In 2016, SoundCloud eliminated the popular Groups feature that likely made these statistics possible and consequently, I expect that these statements are no longer accurate. I've added an Update tag to bring attention to this issue. Lambtron (talk) 16:13, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tag doesn't apply: no "factual accuracy may be compromised". States "in December 2014,..." zzz (talk) 20:39, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ok now I vaguely get what you mean, but it is WP:OR. Also I don't see why you deleted the "groups" info in this edit when you could just say when it was phased out. zzz (talk) 22:13, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Groups no longer exist so it seems obvious to me they don't belong in Features, which is a compendium of current features. If Groups are to remain in the article, perhaps they should be discussed in a new Discontinued_features section. You've made a valid point about WP:OR, yet there is abundant evidence that Groups were a primary enabling factor for the company's 2014 statistics claims (e.g., numerous forum threads lament the loss of Groups because Groups were considered the only means available for many artists to make their works known to listeners). Consequently those statistics are obsolete -- and misleading because they are featured in the article lede. So on the one hand the statistics are obviously no longer valid, but on the other hand the only relevant RS is the company's dated claims -- a seemingly intractable problem. Lambtron (talk) 17:06, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Lede section, + Jargon

Please see MOS:LEAD and MOS:INTRO. " a concise definition: where possible, one that puts the article in context for the nonspecialist." "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies. The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources, and the notability of the article's subject should usually be established in the first few sentences."

"consideration should be given to creating interest in reading more of the article"

WP:Jargon "This page in a nutshell: Strive to make each part of every article as understandable as possible to the widest audience of readers who are likely to be interested in that material." That page also says: "The general reader has no advanced education in the topic's field, is largely unfamiliar with the topic itself, and may even be unsure what the topic is before reading."
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CFCE:1EE0:9526:CE09:DA55:DF6F (talk) 08:42, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

photos

co-founder Eric Wahlforss publishes photos on Flickr under a free license, so there might be good stuff among those many photos to illustrate this article. --1Veertje (talk) 15:37, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Content Issues

Continuous Play Feature

"SoundCloud has a continuous play feature on non-mobile platforms which relates to the listener's stream and likes."
When it comes to mobile devices does this apply to the website / browser experience only? Because the mobile app does have a continuous play feature. Mohilohi90 (talk) 11:39, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"See Also" section is being exploited for commercial purposes

"List of Soundcloud Rappers" link maliciously redirects to an irrelevant list page that cannot meet Wikipedia's encyclopaedic standards, nor wikipedia's open licensing standards.

Rule Violation: " Encyclopedic content must be verifiable. Work submitted to Wikipedia can be edited, used, and redistributed—by anyone—subject to certain terms and conditions." Pmg77 (talk) 06:16, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Removed section "Website details"

The following section has been removed:

=== Website details ===

The SoundCloud website is a progressive web application that allows the navigation between pages without interrupting music playback.

SoundCloud uses adaptive web design (dynamic serving), serving a lightweight and minimal version of the website if accessed from a mobile phone browser.

Although I believe this falls under WP:SKYBLUE and can be verified within seconds, I guess the editor who reverted knows better. Just my two cents. --84.147.34.41 (talk) 22:01, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Ngo says podcast banned from SoundCloud

News today 6/29/2021

https://www.foxnews.com/media/andy-ngo-podcast-banned-soundcloud

https://thepostmillennial.com/breaking-andy-ngos-podcast-permanently-banned-from-soundcloud?utm_campaign=64470

This seems noteworthy to me, although it is breaking news. More broadly, does SoundCloud show any bias in enforcing its published terms of service, or are the ToS noteworthy compared to other platforms? Deepfrieddough (talk) 12:56, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Lệ Xuân: 27.66.47.255 (talk) 02:21, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Trap and Phonk

In the "Cultural impact" section I expected to find mentions of "Trap" and "Phonk", that these genres were popularized on SoundCloud. I don't really have refs myself, except for Yung Gravy stating that "There’s this genre called Phonk that formed on SoundCloud."[1] and someone writing that "Additionally, Phonk probably wouldn't exist had it not been for SoundCloud; this is where [...]"[2] --62.166.252.25 (talk) 16:31, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Talk:SoundCloud"