Talk:Hightail/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Watch for Vandalism

I have noticed that this page has been subject to vandalism, particularly in recent revisions from 98.210.160.130, such as in this revision. I think the page should be watched and checked for vandalism.

• Alvincura (talk) 00:34, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Changes to article

I think this should be added for references: This is the band the Postal Service-- "As for how recording for the new project is being handled, the boys are still keeping it real-- long distance style-- but instead of the mail, they've taken to trading tracks via the internet. "[Since] this time we know how to do YouSendIt.com, doing stuff online is a lot easier now. So we probably won't be using the actual mail," Tamborello said. When asked if this might necessitate a name change for the group, he laughed and said, "Yeah, ‘YouSendIt-dot-com'."" 65.40.127.196 00:44, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I am going to expand the article a bit more soon because its too short for such a popular website. --Thorpe 00:56, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Shame it never got done. I may well do it shortly, although there's not a whole lot more to say. Lukasa 20:00, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

You could mention about them being tied with Zango now (source: http://www.180solutions.com/Press/ReadArticle.aspx?id=40). Satan's Rubber Duck 01:53, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Still needs expanding :) It should be in some sort of category. Mathiastck 18:38, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Looks like YouSendIt no longer works Zango. Check it out: http://zango.yousendit.com/ JanSolo 06:20, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:YouSendIt.PNG

Image:YouSendIt.PNG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 11:52, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Competitors

I do miss Filemail - www.filemail.com - which I consider a better alternative. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.221.22.141 (talk) 09:06, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

From Gartner Magic Quadrant Leaders

• Axway
• GlobalSCAPE
• Sterling Commerce
• Tumbleweed Communications

Challengers

• CA

Visionaries

• Accellion
• Axway
• Biscom
• Cyber-Ark Software
• GlobalSCAPE
• HostedFTP
• Inovis
• Ipsswitch
• iWay Software
• MessageWay Solutions
• nuBridges
• Primeur
• Progient
• Radiance Technologies
• Repliweb
• Sterling Commerce
• Stonebranch
• YouSendIt

Niche Players

• ASG
• LeapFILE

Consumer

• MediaFire

Too much 'History'

Propose to condense the History part to real wikipedia content/value - instead of every little thing this company has gone through.--Pinecar (talk) 03:31, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the History section is pretty sloppy. The last barrage of additions was with the intent to substantiate with verifiable sources some of the events of the formation of the company and its services. I think it definitely needs some cleanup and more encyclopedia-worthy formatting. Alvincura (talk) 20:14, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

History section updates

Why has so much detail been removed? Although much of it is probably not relevant, and is likely to be overly self-promoting, the History section is now grossly lacking in content. Should not some of the history be restored? -- Alvincura (talk) 21:44, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Broken web site

I saw a PHP job they had advertised on DICE and wanted to apply, but the DICE ad had no e-mail address, only the URL. Unfortunately when I go to www.yousendit.com it redirects back to the same URL, again and again, finally I get this: Alert!: Redirection limit of 10 URL's reached. Does anybody here know how to contact anybody there by e-mail, so that I can warn them of their totally broken Web site, and so that I can apply for the job? 198.144.192.45 (talk) 14:03, 27 March 2011 (UTC) Twitter.Com/CalRobert (Robert Maas)

Draft for consideration

{{request edit}} I would like to offer a revised version of the article for Wikipedia's consideration on YouSendIt's behalf (see below). We've spent a lot of time on it and appreciate your consideration of the work. I believe it is a substantial improvement over the current article. I've also provided some comments/notes on areas that could use special attention by an impartial and experienced editor and I welcome any feedback and improvements. CorporateM (Talk) 19:44, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Notes regarding this draft

There is a substantial amount of contentious material about living people in the Background section, some of which was previously deleted as a BLP issue. I do not want to speak poorly of the company's founders, but neither do I want to be seen as hiding negative information to create a polished work. My hope is that by providing the sources[1] and information in the draft, I can entrust this issue to the community's judgement. Even without a COI, it is always difficult to avoid promotionalism on a product article, so I welcome any feedback. Although I feel we did a bang-up job being neutral and balanced (chest swells with pride), the Reception section is always worth a closer look where a COI is involved. The Versions and Features section seems to have some redundancy in that one section describes the features and the other describes when those features were introduced - not sure if there is a better way to do it. There are several placeholders for non-free images I can't fill out in draft-space. If you paste the article in with the placeholders, I will upload the images afterward and remove them from the Talk-page draft.

Proposed draft
Because of the use of so many non-free images, I have taken this draft off the Talk page, but it can still be viewed, here.

Discussion

I came here in response to CorporateM leaving a message on my talk page requesting feedback on BLP and advertising concerns with the proposed draft. Because of the significant amount of time I have spent on new page patrol, specifically in nominating a lot of articles for speedy deletion as blatant advertising, I have an inherent bias against articles related to the SaaS industry. Please keep that in mind when evaluating my comments on the advertising aspect of the article.

• The good news is neither the article as a whole nor any individual section qualifies as blatant advertising.
• The lead section is okay, but could use some CE, e.g., combine the first two sentences and wikify "freemium".  Done
• I don't like the "Software and services" section mainly because I have never been a fan of detailed product and/or service listings on articles about companies. The first paragraph is probably okay, and the remaining paragraphs are too detailed. The second through fourth paragraphs could use some trim, but I'm not sure the last paragraph is salvageable.  Done
• I'll provide the most detailed comments on the "Background" section.
  • Throughout the section you mix up "Shaikh" and "Khalid". Since you are discussing two people with the name "Shaikh", you need to clarify which one you are talking about. You also call one of the Shaikh brothers Arif in one place and Amir in another. That needs to be straightened out.  Done
  • I don't think that the details of the company's fundraising are encyclopedic. Not done I have to protest here. Funding rounds are an important part of a company's history. CorporateM (Talk) 18:04, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
  • I also don't think that the details of what caused the "falling out" between company founders is encyclopedic, though the result of that falling out is.  Done
  • The rest of the section is not how I would have written it in terms of writing style, but I see no further BLP issues.
• I don't have time to review the rest right now, but if I get a chance I'll take a look at a later time. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 16:49, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks so much!! All good advice. I shrunk the BLP issues and trimmed the Software section. That seems like a good approach on both sides. Ryan Vesey said he would take a look, so I'll wait for him to chime in as well. CorporateM (Talk) 18:16, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but I have some concerns.

The lead and the history do not have a single reference independent of the company. The lead is reasonably neutral, which is good, but surely someone, somewhere has reviewed it and summarized it and can be used as a source. I'm sympathetic to Kuyabribri's concern about the funding, but will take a different view – I don't propose that all detials should be removed, but this level of detail is intensely interesting to insiders and competitors while mind-numbingly boring to outside readers. I'd suggest a single sentence along the lines of "Outside financing totaling approximately $49 million was raised between 2004 and 2010, then include all the references.

The product section is problematic.

The opening sentence is classic news release. And it isn't even on-topic, as it is not a description of the product. The change in business model? First, why would a reader care? It is highly unlikely to be of interest to a reader, unless it has been controversial and discussed in the media. I note the lack of a reference. I suspect that many editors will find the list of plans too spammy. I understand why, but I think it is useful to explain that there are differences – this is an elaboration of the freemium comment, and it isn't perfectly clear where appropriate discussion ends and spam begins. It would be better if written as a prose paragraph, but I won't go to the mat on this. I do see an independent sources, I haven't confirmed that all four plans are covered by independent sources that is required.

The list of application plugins is too spammy. It might be fine if it said plugins are available for many applications such as (and list 2 or 3).

Overall it needs work and more independent references.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 21:31, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Sphil. I trimmed the list of plug-ins in the Version History section to 3 examples, summarized the funding rounds from 2006 - 2010, added cites to the lead and cut the first sentence of the Software section per your suggestions. Can you clarify what section you were referring to RE an uncited reference to a change in business model? If the pricing/software versions issue is not a linchpin, I'd rather keep it out for now and we can always get a second opinion later. Not sure what you mean about there being no independent sources in the History section. CorporateM (Talk) 23:21, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

This draft looks fine to me. Would that more of such articles looked like it. Drmies (talk) 04:59, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Drmies (talk) 14:51, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll wait a day or two just to see if there are any further comments before merging. CorporateM (Talk) 21:36, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and implemented it as a first draft. I'll continue to get more feedback through Peer Review and eventually GA. CorporateM (Talk) 21:06, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Reception

In the Peer Review feedback in preparation for a GAN, it was suggested that the Reception section needs to be expanded, so I've prepared an expanded version of the section below. I'd like to request an impartial editor consider adding the content or providing feedback. CorporateM (Talk) 00:47, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Extended content

PC Magazine gave YouSendIt a 4/5 or "excellent" rating. The author found YouSendIt was easy-to-use and noted its digital signing and cloud storage features. The reviewer did have problems when trying to use the digital signing feature with the phone held vertically and experienced occasional crashes. TopTenReviews gave YouSendIt a 9.5 out of 10. TopTenReviews praised YouSendIt for unlimited downloads and accessibility from a desktop, laptop or other mobile device. In benchmark tests, YouSendIt took 7 minutes to upload a 30 MB file, compared to an industry average of 6. According to a review in Small Business Trends, "Probably one of the most powerful features is the ability to sign digital documents." A review in About.com said YouSendIt was easy-to-use and noted its features for password protection, file-tracking and interface branding, but also pointed out that users can't copy themselves on files sent through the YouSendIt Outlook application. A reviewer at MacLife liked YouSendIt's synchronization and collaboration tools, but had some complaints about a "clunky" user interface. For the YouSendIt for Business product, PC Advisor said that competitor Dropbox had better customization, while YouSendIt had the advantage of integration with Sharepoint and Active Directory for corporate environments. The IT analyst firm, Enterprise Strategy Group (ESG), conducted a comparative review of vendors in the file sharing and collaboration market in 2012. It gave YouSendIt an average score for the segment from an end-user's perspective and a slightly below-average score from an administrator's perspective. The analyst firm noted YouSendIt's pricing model was expensive on a per-user basis, but its lack of caps or surcharges made it more affordable for heavy users. ESG testers found YouSendIt was easy and secure, but did not have the auditing and workflow features of some competitors. References

The writing looks good for a neutral pov.

A couple of things regarding style, when you shorten any quote, you'll need to use (...) showing the part of the sentence you shortened i.e. "...one of the most powerful features is the ability to sign digital documents." But looking at the article, I would write it without the ellipsis.

  In Small Business Trends, TJ McCue writes, "Probably one of the most powerful [YouSendIt] features 
 is the ability to sign digital documents." 

In one instance you shortened the middle of the sentence (probably not necessary), I generally use [...] for paragraphs that are shortened in the middle and avoid shortening sentences in the middle because it leaves the reader wondering about what was taken out. MOS:ELLIPSIS.

The names of publications should be italicized, articles and chapters would be in double quotes. Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Titles

Regards 009o9 (talk) 06:02, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for looking it over! Let me know if anything else comes up. CorporateM (Talk) 14:19, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

 Done I got started updating the section and found that internal links were needed to other articles. I also made some readability edits, (Who)WWWWH let me know if my changes broke the context. I have a request pending about this article User:009o9/Michigan Film Incentive Rewrite, would you have a look? 009o9 (talk) 19:25, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi. I think this article still seems a bit like an ad, not overtly but it could be toned down. I'm not sure if other editors feel this is needed. LMK and I'll try to help. Synergee (talk) 16:58, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

It could use some copy-editing. Here's some things I noticed looking at it with a fresh pair of eyes:

• In August 2005, another round of funding raised $5 million -> Another $5 million was raised in August 2005
• The sentence on the survey near the end of History could probably be taken out
• The first sentence in the lead could be broken up into two separate sentences
• "there is the a business product with..."
• Software and services -> Features
• "The reviewer, Jeffrey Wilson..."

CorporateM (Talk) 18:35, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Controversy section

After reading more about the FBI and DOS attacks I felt a controversy section should be created. However, since the attacker was no longer with the company I am questioning whether or not this should become it's own section. Looking for opinions, thanks.Synergee (talk) 06:17, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi Synergee. A few thoughts. WP:LEAD suggests that the intro to the article include information from each section and each sub-section, because it's intended to summarize the entire article, but now the Lead no longer contains any information from the Background section. Also, WP:Criticism suggests that we don't create dedicated "Controversy" sections (these are common but generally unwanted) because it draws undue attention to them.

Obviously I may be bias, because I have a COI, so I'll ping an impartial editor to get a quick second opinion. As additional context, the DoS attack I added I did so cautiously, since it has been removed several times based on our rules for living people. It's also difficult to tell how much of it belongs on this page and how much of it would belong on the individual's page if it existed. CorporateM (Talk) 14:51, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

I oppose the current Controversy section, for a number of reasons. One, we don't create a special section for just one sentence (or two) per WP:MOS. Two, where is the controversy? A disgruntled CEO made a cyber attack on the web site in 2009. That was four years ago and its over. Put it in the History section. Sure the ex-CEO is just now being sentenced but that info belongs in his BLP, not here. Three, putting this minor incident in a special section creates undue weight per WP:NPOV. Fourth, the current content is innacuarate "according to the FBI" ?? The source is The Register UK not the FBI. And lastly there is a BLP violation here per WP:BLPCRIME as even though he has plead guilty, he has not yet been convicted.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:10, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Oops, a couple of those last points are my fault. We could probably just do "plead guilty to..." Though I would prefer not to get overly involved. It's awkward for me to discuss such a contentious topic about one of YouSendIt's founder's. CorporateM (Talk) 15:34, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

I've merged the content in to the Description/History section and removed the ex-CEO's name. To publish his name in this regard before he is convicted is a violation of WP:BLPCRIME in my opinion. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 14:50, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Everyone here has made good points and I appreciate all of the feedback. Everything I've read that can be considered controversy for YouSendit seems to revolve around a person rather than the company. We should therefore tread lightly and avoid this section. Synergee (talk) 01:41, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Synergee and Corporate for the discussion and collaboration! Peace -- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:17, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi Synergee. If you're interested, the article is currently nominated for "Good Article" status, which means eventually a veteran editor will swing by and provide feedback on what the article needs to bring it up to exceptional standards. I find that GAs are a great way for me to up my game as an editor and get very thorough feedback on what the article needs. I'd be happy to take a step back and let you take over when the GA reviewer comes by. They'll provide some specific advice on where the article needs improvement. I bring it up because I don't want to take away the opportunity for you to contribute by taking too much ownership of the article and it's a great way to learn community norms and best practices. In my role as a PR participant, I think the best thing for me to do is help support and facilitate volunteer editing when an editor has a natural interest. CorporateM (Talk) 16:01, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

I would be happy to review the article, having no prior knowledge about this whatsoever. It looks good, although one reference has red text saying missing title. Numbermaniac - T- C 03:30, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

EDIT: Reference 18. Numbermaniac - T- C 03:30, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

 Done Missing title in the citation fixed. CorporateM (Talk) 20:41, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Cool. Time to assess this article for GA status! :D Numbermaniac - T- C 02:41, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:YouSendIt/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Numbermaniac (talk · contribs) 02:45, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

• GA1: Correct spelling and grammar throughout the article.
• GA2: A long list of good references.
• GA3: No unnecessary detail, good coverage in its aspects.
• GA4: Not so much applicable here, but still no bias throughout.
• GA5: Currently no content dispute or edit war in the article's history.
• GA6: Images correctly presented in the article, all relevant to the article's topic.

With a few more checks, this article could definitely be GA-status! Yay! :P. Numbermaniac - T- C 03:03, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

How can I help? Images? Synergee (talk) 06:06, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

General look by North8000

CorporateM appears to be the main current editor. They have always been tough on themselves by wanting thorough review of what they do and asked me to take a look at this article. You asked for it!  :-)North8000 (talk) 12:07, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Disclaimer: I'm no expert on YouSendIt, the only thing that I know about "it" is what I read in this article.

• The main thing that popped out at me after my fist two reads is that the lead is too short. The lead should be a summary of what is in the article. 3-4 paragraphs is common, maybe 3 for a short article like this. The shortness (actually what is and isn't omitted to "make" it that short) causes another problem. The (only) material that is in there is a description of the product and it's features. While I think that the wording itself is OK, having the lead be only that makes the lead somewhat promotional. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 12:21, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

• YouSendIt is three different things:

1. A company
2. A piece of software
3. A package of items (software, a website, cloud storage etc.) that provides a service or set of services

The article is not as clear as it could be because it kinds of blends all of the above three and uses them interchangeably in sentences, and does not "overview" them as entities and the relationship between them. Recommend clarifying this. I might try making a few changes in this area, but I don't have the knowledge in YouSendIt to really make this change. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 12:32, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I added some clarifications to distinguish the "YouSendIt service" from "YouSendIt Inc."

How's this as an addition to the lead (after the current first paragraph):

"YouSendIt.com and YouSendIt Inc. were founded in 2004 by Ranjith Kumaran and two brothers: Amir Shaikh and Khalid Shaikh. The service grew quickly as file recipients saw how it works and YouSendIt Inc. raised $49 million in funding. The founders eventually separated and one launched denial of service attacks against the website.

YouSendIt.com was founded as a consumer service. Its first corporate version was introduced in 2007, which was followed by the development of plug-ins for business applications and the release of Workstream, which would be renamed to YouSendIt for Business. The YouSendIt consumer service gets positive overall reviews. It's praised for its synchronization, digital signing and accessibility from multiple devices, but does experience occasional crashes and user interface quirks. Enterprise Strategy Group gave the business version an average review, saying that its pricing model favored heavy users and the service was easy and secure, but lacked some of the auditing and workflow features offered by competitors.

This should bring it up to WP:LEAD by adding a bit of content from each section. CorporateM (Talk) 20:19, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Looks good. I put it in. North8000 (talk) 12:21, 11 May 2013 (UTC)