Difference between revisions of "Talk:Timeline of Substack"
From Timelines
| (13 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| + | ==Partial review by Vipul on 2024-11-02== | ||
| + | |||
| + | Thanks for addressing all the feedback in my previous review. My previous review, though I called it "partial", covered all important aspects of the timeline. There were just a few auxiliary parts I had not read through that carefully. Here are a couple of minor pieces of feedback and additional observations; once these are addressed, I will proceed to determine payment for the timeline: | ||
| + | |||
| + | * For the sample questions, the answers to a couple of them could benefit from mentioning the presence of visual data sections that cover related information. In particular, these two: "What notable funding rounds has Substack participated in since its inception?" and "What milestones has Substack reached in terms of user subscriptions and media influence over the years?" | ||
| + | * Can you comment on the items in "What the timeline is still missing" and whether they are fit for inclusion? If they're fit for inclusion, it might be good to add them in. I think the first point under "What the timeline is still missing" doesn't apply. | ||
| + | |||
==Partial review by Vipul on 2024-10-25== | ==Partial review by Vipul on 2024-10-25== | ||
| Line 5: | Line 12: | ||
===General comments=== | ===General comments=== | ||
| − | * Maybe say Twitter / X instead of Twitter, given that X is the new name? Particularly for mentions of it after Elon Musk renamed it. | + | * Maybe say Twitter / X instead of Twitter, given that X is the new name? Particularly for mentions of it after Elon Musk renamed it.✔ |
| − | * The inclusion criteria feel a bit circular to me (we include covered updates?). Some more clarity there might help. | + | * The inclusion criteria feel a bit circular to me (we include covered updates?). Some more clarity there might help.✔ |
| − | * Maybe add a row for the launch of Substack Pro? I see many rows mentioning Substack Pro but nothing for its launch. | + | |
| − | * Maybe add a row or rows for the Substack Defender program | + | * Maybe add a row for the launch of Substack Pro? I see many rows mentioning Substack Pro but nothing for its launch.✔ |
| + | * Maybe add a row or rows for the Substack Defender program (I see it's mentioned tangentially in notes about a third-party article on the program, but it would be good to include it directly).✔ | ||
===Line-by-line comments on the full timeline=== | ===Line-by-line comments on the full timeline=== | ||
| − | * First two rows feel | + | * First two rows feel duplicative✔ |
| − | * 2020 April 6: Substack Notes release year should be 2023, not 2020 (also the row for 2023 April 7 can be combined with it) | + | * 2020 April 6: Substack Notes release year should be 2023, not 2020 (also the row for 2023 April 7 can be combined with it) ✔ |
| − | * 2020 December 16: "Substack's launches" should be "Substack launches" | + | * 2020 December 16: "Substack's launches" should be "Substack launches" ✔ |
| − | * Substack Series B in 2021: seemingly duplicate rows for March 30, May 30, and September | + | * Substack Series B in 2021: seemingly duplicate rows for March 30, May 30, and September ✔ |
| − | * 2021 August 24: "acquires of Cocoon" <-- remove "of" | + | * 2021 August 24: "acquires of Cocoon" <-- remove "of" ✔ |
| − | * 2021 October 5: "Michael Moore's moves" should be "Michael Moore moves" | + | * 2021 October 5: "Michael Moore's moves" should be "Michael Moore moves"✔ |
| − | * 2022 January 27: I suggest instead of "spreads debunked claims about COVID-19 vaccines" say "spreads claims about COVID-19 vaccines | + | * 2022 January 27: I suggest instead of "spreads debunked claims about COVID-19 vaccines" say "spreads claims about COVID-19 vaccines that the critics consider to be debunked."✔ |
| − | * 2022 March 9: "University of Berkeley" should be "UC Berkeley" or "University of California, Berkeley" (the source uses the wrong name, but we should still use the right one) | + | * 2022 March 9: "University of Berkeley" should be "UC Berkeley" or "University of California, Berkeley" (the source uses the wrong name, but we should still use the right one)✔ |
| − | * 2023 April 17: There is no reference / citation for me to go to the | + | * 2023 April 17: There is no reference / citation for me to go to the article✔ |
| − | * 2023 May 30: There is no reference / | + | * 2023 May 30: There is no reference / citation✔ |
| − | * 2024 January 17: "introduces of a report feature" should be "introduces a report feature" | + | * 2024 January 17: "introduces of a report feature" should be "introduces a report feature" ✔ |
===Comments on visual data=== | ===Comments on visual data=== | ||
| − | * For the monthly active users, it's probably wise to include a disclaimer that this data is compiled partly using third-party data, not endorsed by Substack, and therefore may not be accurate. | + | * For the monthly active users, it's probably wise to include a disclaimer that this data is compiled partly using third-party data, not endorsed by Substack, and therefore may not be accurate.✔ |
| − | * Similarly, for paying subscribers, maybe clarify that the information is collated from different news articles and announcements (though the information is sourced to Substack in all of them), and therefore the data is not at a regular cadence. | + | * Similarly, for paying subscribers, maybe clarify that the information is collated from different news articles and announcements (though the information is sourced to Substack in all of them), and therefore the data is not at a regular cadence.✔ |
===External evaluation=== | ===External evaluation=== | ||
Latest revision as of 22:13, 2 November 2024
Contents
Partial review by Vipul on 2024-11-02
Thanks for addressing all the feedback in my previous review. My previous review, though I called it "partial", covered all important aspects of the timeline. There were just a few auxiliary parts I had not read through that carefully. Here are a couple of minor pieces of feedback and additional observations; once these are addressed, I will proceed to determine payment for the timeline:
- For the sample questions, the answers to a couple of them could benefit from mentioning the presence of visual data sections that cover related information. In particular, these two: "What notable funding rounds has Substack participated in since its inception?" and "What milestones has Substack reached in terms of user subscriptions and media influence over the years?"
- Can you comment on the items in "What the timeline is still missing" and whether they are fit for inclusion? If they're fit for inclusion, it might be good to add them in. I think the first point under "What the timeline is still missing" doesn't apply.
Partial review by Vipul on 2024-10-25
This is not a full review, but I'd like for these comments to be addressed as they'll make it easier to do a proper pass of review. My guess is that once these are addressed, I will be able to get to tentative payment.
General comments
- Maybe say Twitter / X instead of Twitter, given that X is the new name? Particularly for mentions of it after Elon Musk renamed it.✔
- The inclusion criteria feel a bit circular to me (we include covered updates?). Some more clarity there might help.✔
- Maybe add a row for the launch of Substack Pro? I see many rows mentioning Substack Pro but nothing for its launch.✔
- Maybe add a row or rows for the Substack Defender program (I see it's mentioned tangentially in notes about a third-party article on the program, but it would be good to include it directly).✔
Line-by-line comments on the full timeline
- First two rows feel duplicative✔
- 2020 April 6: Substack Notes release year should be 2023, not 2020 (also the row for 2023 April 7 can be combined with it) ✔
- 2020 December 16: "Substack's launches" should be "Substack launches" ✔
- Substack Series B in 2021: seemingly duplicate rows for March 30, May 30, and September ✔
- 2021 August 24: "acquires of Cocoon" <-- remove "of" ✔
- 2021 October 5: "Michael Moore's moves" should be "Michael Moore moves"✔
- 2022 January 27: I suggest instead of "spreads debunked claims about COVID-19 vaccines" say "spreads claims about COVID-19 vaccines that the critics consider to be debunked."✔
- 2022 March 9: "University of Berkeley" should be "UC Berkeley" or "University of California, Berkeley" (the source uses the wrong name, but we should still use the right one)✔
- 2023 April 17: There is no reference / citation for me to go to the article✔
- 2023 May 30: There is no reference / citation✔
- 2024 January 17: "introduces of a report feature" should be "introduces a report feature" ✔
Comments on visual data
- For the monthly active users, it's probably wise to include a disclaimer that this data is compiled partly using third-party data, not endorsed by Substack, and therefore may not be accurate.✔
- Similarly, for paying subscribers, maybe clarify that the information is collated from different news articles and announcements (though the information is sourced to Substack in all of them), and therefore the data is not at a regular cadence.✔
External evaluation
I asked ChatGPT to generate a timeline of Substack, and the timeline it generated for me was clearly inferior.
I also read the Wikipedia page on Substack, which is what led me to add the point above about Substack Defender.
