Talk:Trafford Publishing

Suggestions for removal of content

This page seems to be a ad for the company, I think that the What trafford is/isn't is basiclly directly from their website. I think that those parts should really just be taken out, they really don't have any place in an impartial article. An7drew 16:48, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree that if content is lifted from their web site or is written like a sales brochure, it needs to be edited and/or trimmed down.

But also be aware there has been a serious effort to make sure that vanity publishers with their own articles be characterized as such, in no uncertain terms. A large part of the reason for this is that more and more people are using vanity publications as references in other Wikipedia articles, essentially misrepresenting the reliability of those sources because people see the name of the publisher and an ISBN and think it's a legitimate publication, whereas for a given title, the company is quite possibly just a printing service. (Perhaps someday people will be more informed about the changes taking place in the publishing industry, or there will be a system for rating sources, but until then, we kind of have to anticipate what people know & how they use this information)

So, regardless of whatever changes are made, we need to be sure that the article remains sufficient for readers to use in gauging the reliability of sources attributed to this publisher. —mjb 05:24, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

-prod on basis of above comments. DGG 06:04, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

"Vanity press" removed, as it is a pejorative term and needs to be substantiated with sound referencing. At the moment, it's pure OR. It's not the job of an article to advise wiki editors what is a sound reference. Not to mention the difference between the classic "vanity" publisher and the new breed of POD publishers - some of whom have produced best sellers. Ty 00:55, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Certainly a vanity press

According to this story in a reputable Canadian newspaper[1], this company is definitely a vanity press: "Trafford Press in Victoria — which has issued 8,000 titles since it started in 1995 and charges up to $2,549 to produce a book." There's just no other honest way to look at it. Vanity press. And the article should state that truth. Qworty (talk) 06:00, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

The article describes Trafford as print on demand and does not describe it as a vanity press. The only way we look at anything is by following precisely what verifiable sources state about the subject, not editors' personal evaluations. Ty 06:18, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

POD is a technology, it has nothing to do with vanity vs. non-vanity. The fact remains that Trafford is a vanity press because they charge for publication. That's not a personal evaluation. That's a fact from their own website and many other sources. Qworty (talk) 06:41, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

And your reliable secondary source(s) that say all of that? Ty 07:54, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Ty has a point on VP, for all it may be accurate, without a reliable reference which explicitly describes it as such we have to go with POD in the article. Aside from that, WP:CORP? I'm guessing it might pass, but I don't see the WP:V anywhere... Deiz talk 15:12, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

For a hatchet job see [www.hastingspress.co.uk/trafford.html]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.104.132.41 (talk) 10:26, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

The last paragraph mentions "Morriss Printing," yet nowhere in the article is there any mention of how Morriss and Trafford/Author Solutions are connected.

In fact, the last ¶ comes across as a non sequitur that should be removed.

Can the connection between Morriss and Trafford/Author Solutions be clarified?

Thank you. 2600:8800:784:8F00:C23F:D5FF:FEC4:D51D (talk) 07:00, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

BBB Reviews

Ok, so this has been going on for a while. My concern about adding the Better Business Bureau as an external link [2] is that, as far as I can tell, almost none of the included reviews are about Trafford. When I last read through them, there were 59 reviews and 186 complaints, but only 2 of the former mentioned Trafford and only one of the latter. Given that the vast majority don't mention this company, I see no value in linking to the BBB list from here. - Bilby (talk) 06:38, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

PURE NON-SENSE... trafford changed the name long ago to author solutions, but their trafford emails stillwork thus bbb link is appropriate, also birdeye review link matches reviews with bbb (and it seems bbb management is protecting author solutions, better business bureau was never neutral anywhere, anyways) [redacted]: reviews.birdeye.com/trafford-publishing-146934950008978?filter=Newest and your "neutral" approach definitely points outthat you are protecting this "publishing firm." Not only does it have one star reviews, everybody complaintsthere how they got screwed and if there were zero stars reviews, based on the pattern and trend of reviews, it would have zero rating! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 105.71.145.156 (talk) 19:49, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

None of these sites solely based on user-submitted reviews are particularly useful, as with so few reviews it is easy to slant them one way or another. With 17 of 20 reviews all submitted by the same person, with basically the same text, I don't think we can use Birdeye at all.

Still, we're stuck with the problem - if the reviews on BBB are all about Xlibris and other subsideries instead of Trafford, I can't see how we can link to those reviews from the Trafford article. Perhaps from the Author Solutions article instead? - Bilby (talk) 10:09, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Again, trafford is author solutions, how hard is DUH? [Redacted]

... also birdeye and bbb comments are 100% consistent with this site which exclusively deals with vanity publishings: selfpublishing.com/trafford-publishing/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 105.71.145.156 (talk)

I've opened up a discussion at Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard#Trafford Publishing and BBB.org to get different opinions, as it doesn;t seem that you and I will be able to come to a consensus on our own. - Bilby (talk) 05:46, 28 May 2023 (UTC)