Talk:Slingbox

Astroturfing

The "Customer Problems" area has been gutted to the point that it now reads like it came from the Slingbox marketing team -- which it probably did. The description of the "slingcommunity" Web site is ripped directly from the "description" metatag on the site. All negative language was removed. Maketing buzzwords like "innovative device" crept in and the trademark symbol was included on all references.

Current version:

Slingbocustomers have requested help with configuring their Slingbox's on the slingcommunity web site [5]. SlingCommunity is an interactive community dedicated solely to Sling Media's Slingbox™ Personal Broadcaster. It is a place where any consumer can share ideas and discuss this innovative device. Many consumers use this site to get help and report problems with network configuration, especially in configuring the Slingbox to be remotely viewable from the internet.

Sling Media also has a great support and support staff. You can find their support page here

Version available before "Daddybc" got ahold of the site:

Slingbox customers have reported numerous problem with configuring their Slingbox's on the company's community web site[5]. Many consumers have reported problems with network configuration, especially in configuring the Slingbox to be remotely viewable from the internet, when their SlingBox is behind a firewall on their home network. Even when the Slingbox is reachable from the internet, the company's configuration software refuses to update Slingbox settings to allow remote viewing unless the user's PC is running on the local (home) network.

152.79.71.230 23:14, 13 April 2007 (UTC)John Marcotte

Response to: Astroturfing

I do not agree with the use of the term "Astroturfing"; nothing in the article claims to be in support of anything that is falsely attributed to a grass-roots testimonial.

In fact there isn't much substance to John Marcotte's criticism after the flamewords are doused:

 +  "gutted" = "changed"
 +  "reads like" = "my perception is"
 +  "probably did" = "I would like everyone to think"
 +  "ripped" = "cited"
 +  "all negative language" = "dishing"
 +  "crept in" = "were added"
 +  "got ahold of" = "contributed to"

The cited "previous" version preferred by Marcotte is simply not coherent, and is at best inaccurate, if I understand it at all.

In my opinion, this should be an article about the device and its innovative features and uses, not about claims against the manufacturer about how difficult it is to use, configure, or its software delivery schedules. Who's going to care about such axe-grinding, a hundred years from now?

Steve Hartwell, Macintosh Developer Lead, Sling Media

St3veh 04:34, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Response to: Astroturfing

This article is a commercial.

Needs a lot of work

This article needs to be updated and redone. Will start working on it shortly. Hhwong (talk) 17:21, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

NTSC

I made a edit adding Japan to the reference to NTSC, is this right? I would like some confirmation. I know that Japan uses ntsc, I just dont know if it applies in this context.

IR cabling

Is it just me, or does that sound odd.

No, it's just the lead and external IR sender pod that you string from the back of the Slingbox (or [Tivo] or Video Sender) to sit in front of your video/satellite unit so it can control it. AMe 19:36, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Response to Astroturfing

John Marcotte's angry words may be able to be deconstructed, but their meaning doesn't change. Wikipedia is a place for straight information, not your advertising.

If users are reporting problems with setting up the slingbox that is relevant. If you don't want people to have access to the large number of complaints about the Slingbox Setup, then don't provide a public forum for it.

Your use of the word "innovative" is completely subjective considering there are an array of other products providing streaming DVR media including even now the PSP.

Sentences like:

"However, unlike Sony's LocationFree Player, the Slingbox user is not required to obtain or pay for a new license, in order to stream to another computer."

is a competitive blunt and isn't relevant. Links to the articles below for each of the other media are provided. They can go to each page to see what the competition offers.

Another poorly worded sentence is:

"This is mainly due to the fact that you have to configure your router to allow port forwarding."

This is an instruction to a customer, not a fact about the slingbox itself. I suggest, "The most common problem among slingbox owners is reconfiguring a router, since the Slingbox uses port forwarding."

Geocentric

It would seem that this website is inaccessible from outside the United States. I tried opening videos from here in Canada but without success. NorthernThunder (talk) 17:30, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

mReplay Advertising?

Only cites are to the softwares on site. No news sources under google news archive and the only info I can find seems to be promotional or download sites? 209.121.225.250 (talk) 04:11, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Revamped both Slingbox and Sling Media

This and the Sling Media page had extremely old content and both needed to be refactored to separate the company from the product and technology. I also tried to maintain a NPOV on both, as the content on Slingbox was veering off into weird territory that should have been on the Sling Media side anyway. Cheers. Hhwong (talk) 21:21, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

2017:new product for live streaming: SlingStudio

In 2017, Sling introduced a wireles multicam streaming solution calledSlingStudio. Not sure if it deserves a place here. Wernert (talk) 21:53, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Future

Hi, first please excuse me if I am posting this wrong because I am totally new to editing an article. I also appologize for the first couple of edits I tried in the "Future" section because I did not fully understand the posting format (I was inserting a link in the body of Slingbox when it should be a "reference").

So, I believe I finally figured out all the formatting issues with my latest edit:

In addition, Step-By-Step instructions on how to build a Slingbox Alternative system is available.

But when I posted it, I received a warning about the link being a spam link. If you look at the article, it is a complete step-by-step instructions to help slingbox users create a working alternative to their now dead slingbox, which many, many users have sent me emails thanking me for the article. And in many ways it is a good alternative to the "slinger" solution also mentioned in the "Future" section I am editing.

So I don't understand why the page is considered "spam". Is it possibly because I have a "donate" link on it? If so, a donation is completely optional and the article is just as helpful to slingbox users wether they donate or not. I spent many hours creating this guide, and I just wanted to provide a way for users to buy me a cup of coffee if they wanted to.

Please let me know how I can edit the page so it will not be considered spam? MrEngineerMind (talk) 15:51, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

If you yourself created this page, as you claimed, then it would seem to be promotional content whether or not you're benefitting from it in a material manner, so I can see why concerns were raised about it. It's not a reliable source in any case, as it's self-published content. I don't think there's sufficient grounds for inclusion unless secondary sources have discussed this guide. DonIago (talk) 17:40, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Will this link count as a "Secondary" source (independant of me) that references my article (and has discussion):

https://www.techguy.org/threads/slingbox-alternative.1276798/

And will this link count as a "discussion" about the article:

https://www.reddit.com/r/slingbox/comments/l7cico/my_working_slingbox_alternative_system_setup_and/ MrEngineerMind (talk) 22:23, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Neither one of those, to me, appear to meet the standard of a reliable source. DonIago (talk) 04:56, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

I am having a hard time understanding the difference between the approved reference article (https://zatznotfunny.com/2022-11/save-slingbox/) that is from a non-afilliated author who mentions the Slinger work-around and has a discussion on it, and my reference (https://www.techguy.org/threads/slingbox-alternative.1276798) which is similarly from a non-affiliated author who mentions my work-around and also has a discussion. Please help me understand the difference.

Should I instead use the techguy link as the reference (to include in the "Future" section) instead of the one that goes directly to my article? MrEngineerMind (talk) 14:08, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Tech Support Guy is explicitly listed as a forum, meaning that the content posted there isn't subject to any editorial oversight and hence cannot be considered reliable. Zatz Not Funny! doesn't appear to be a forum and does have a team of people in place per their About page. That said, I'm merely expressing my opinions here; if other editors disagree with my views, they're welcome to present opposing arguments. DonIago (talk) 14:23, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

It seems like a distinction without much of a difference because my article contains factual technical info and no potential mis-information (which would require editorial oversight). See for yourself - try finding ANY source to say my article contains ANY wrong information. In contrast, MANY, MANY people have posted problems getting the slinger solution to work. It's a shame my article can't be included in wikipedia and reach more ex-slingbox users because it offers a much better picture quality than the original slingbox (and the "slinger" solution also because it uses the same original slingbox hardware) and my solution uses off-the-shelf hardware that you can buy anywhere, whereas with the slinger solution, once your slingbox dies, game over. So, I hope other editors would be willing to reconsider the posting of a reference to my article. Thank you for explaining all of this to a wikipedia newbie (me). MrEngineerMind (talk) 17:26, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

You're welcome. I think you need to consider that you may be approaching this from a biased viewpoint due to having a conflict of interest, in that you're specifically trying to add in a mention of your own paper...which, not having been subjected to editorial oversight either, is similarly not a reliable source.

I don't know that I have much else to say on this; hopefully other editors will weigh in as well. DonIago (talk) 17:30, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

What I don't understand is that the approved zatznotfunny reference is considered reliable because is is posted under "editorial oversight" that didn't even test the solution themself and is simply relying on the writer of that solution for it's accuracy. So I fail to see how the "editorial oversight" provides any "reliablity" for that reference vs the same rejected techguy.org reference mentioning of my article. It would be one thing if the "editor" of the zatsnotfunny post actually tested the slinger solution themself to vouch for it's validity, but that didn't happen, so again it's a distinction without any effective difference. MrEngineerMind (talk) 17:45, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

If you feel that site shouldn't be considered reliable then you're welcome to remove the citation and request a new one. DonIago (talk) 17:47, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

I appreciate the suggestion, but since the slinger solution does work for some people, it would be wrong to remove it.

My issue is not with the reliability of a reference, it's with why is my reference rejected when it's just as reliable (if not more reliable because my reference actually tested my solution) as the other reference that was approved? MrEngineerMind (talk) 17:54, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

...oh, and the person of the techguy.org reference actually tested my solution and vouches for it's validity! MrEngineerMind (talk) 17:50, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Have you reviewed WP:RS? Because trying to advocate for including your text on the grounds that someone vouches for its validity suggests that you don't understand what constitutes a reliable source. DonIago (talk) 20:15, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

References