Jump to content

Talk:Blackle

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Functionality

[edit]

Is it just me, or does the 'functionality' section seem to be copied word for word from the blog? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.120.117.119 (talk) 02:57, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actual Energy Saved

[edit]

Much of the discussion about Blackle has centered on how to estimate the energy savings. (What size monitor, type of monitor, brightness/contrast settings, etc...) A simple energy conversion reveals that all of this is inconsequential. Use the original estimate: 750 MWhr per year. How much energy is this? It's the amount of electricity generated by a 500 MW power plant (an average coal plant) in about an hour and a half. That is the energy savings PER YEAR.

To convert these energy savings into something more concrete, convert 750 MWhr into the equivalents energy obtained from a barrel of oil, using the calculator found here. 750 MWhr is only 423 barrels of oil. Compare this to the BILLIONS of barrels of oil used every year, and it becomes clear that using Blackle is inconsequential. Who cares if the calculation is off by a factor of 10? Saving 40 or 4000 barrels of oil makes no difference compared to the billions of gallons of oil or the billions of gigawatt hours of electricity consumed each year.

I had to put these comments on the discussion page, because they are "original research" or whatever. However, these facts are more important than the garbage in any of the blogs the article links to. Please read the World energy resources and consumption page to see how inconsequential Backle really is. Feel free to include any of these number in the article if you know how to get them past the "original research" censors. Thanks!

  • I too think Blackle is getting away with something here that should be cleared up, but they have never stated a number, only that 'Blackle saves energy'. I tried adding research and it got removed as well, but there should be some way to express this concept. MyTigers 00:11, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The number, 750 MWhrs, comes from the original blog which inspired the creation of Blackle. As this is the basis for Blackle's existence, it is relevant to compare this to the actual energy consumed annually. Please leave this criticism in the article.
    • Cant do this - Blackle, the company, has not stated a number. You can use the current reading off their web page, and then cite a source that translates that into real world terms. I think that's ok.
  • I added a paragraph to the criticism section saying something to that effect, quoting the CIA World Factbook. I'm not an experienced editor (it took me 4 tries to get the reference right), so change it if you want.Eebster the Great (talk) 00:16, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tigers, I'm not sure why you deleted my last edit. I understand it was one-sided, but that should be obvious as it is under the "criticism" section designed to display the other side of the issue contrary to the main article text. I didn't revert it, but I think something like that needs to be in the article, since numbers like "750 MWH" are meaningless to most people. Also note that there was nothing in the paragraph that wasn't a total fact, I referenced my statistics, and there was nothing to suggest that this point of view was somehow "more valid" than the main article's. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.187.197.2 (talk) 22:08, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree something needs to be in the article, I think is has to be phrased correctly e.g. comparing any energy savings to the us energy use is of limited value. The point of the criticism needs to be explained - what is it? There's no savings? They are misrepresenting it? The savings is small? MyTigers (talk) 00:19, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I tried a second attempt at a paragraph on the scale of the savings. To me it sounds like it might fall into the same category as the last one, but I'm not sure how you would like me to rephrase it. My point is that while the savings may be real, they aren't enough to bother with. It might be a bit harsh, though, and I wish somebody would edit it (rather than delete it).Eebster the Great (talk) 01:19, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would say there are no real savings, and by my reckoning Blackle consumes more power than its operators claim it saves. Even assuming their savings calculations are correct (which others have proved they are not), at the time of writing this they claim to have saved "600,000 watt hours". That's 600KWh. They've been running for about a year, and that works out at about 1.6KWh a day, just over what a single 60 watt light bulb would consume. Now even if they are using a single fairly modest server to serve up their pages (it's Google's data centres that do the actual search work), running at, say, 200 watts, they would still be consuming several times more power to run the site than they claim to save. ~Matticus UC 10:20, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

[edit]

(added heading)

This page is contradictory.

Robertson et al report a white background using only 2-3% more power than black.

In fact, in LCD monitors, power is required to turn pixels black (they are white, or rather clear by default), so using Blackle on such screens will actually increase power usage very slightly.

The site is aimed at those who use CRT monitors. They draw more power when displaying a white screen. Note that the site was developed in Australia where 80% of their electricity comes from coal which emites greenhouse gases when burnt. Alan Liefting 03:53, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have updated the article with correct figures from the report. A previous editor had not interpreted the report correctly. The total savings of electricity would be significant but with the trend towards the use of LCD monitos this saving will drop. Alan Liefting 04:22, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion

[edit]

I'm not sure exactly what is required of the sources to avoid this deletion. There is currently a link to a US DOE website and to a paper from LBNL. I think both of these should be "reliable sources." They don't discuss Blackle though, just the general subject of power consumption in monitors. Does there need to be a specific reliable 3rd party source that mentions blackle? I guess so. A google search for "blackle" returns 800 000 hits. Obviously this isn't as good as adding some reliable source to the article, but might indicate something about notability.

As a side note, people seem to conclude that Blackle is useless or even increases energy consumption... but the original blog recognizes that this only works on CRTs and uses the CRT usage numbers in the calculation (apparently), after this they still come up with the energy savings. CRT use is apparently higher in developing areas of the world as well. Sewebster 19:58, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but the original blog post was not about Blackle, it was about Google switching its background to black, which would affect all users (Google cannot detect which monitor type you are using). Though the original post does mention that 75% of monitors are LCDs, and factors this into the equation, it doesn't recognise that LCDs may consume MORE power than CRTs with a black background, and it doesn't subtract that power consumption from the savings figures. It also doesn't recognise that the trend is towards LCD screens, such that a black Google would become less beneficial over time.
Obviously Blackle could be used only by CRT owners, but it doesn't advertise on the site that this is how it should be used. They don't say in big bold letters "Don't use this if you have an LCD, you'll use more energy than normal Google!" and that is legitimate grounds for criticism. They also don't advertise that they are a money-making organisation.
--This unsigned edit was added by 195.47.237.201.
If blackle.com is important, someone should have commented on it in the press. Are there really no press mentions? If the blackle.com web site received a lot of traffic, that would have been noticed as well. If there is no notice, that suggests we don't need an article. We expect to get independent information (not just the website itself) to comment on it. EdJohnston 21:02, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I added a reference. You could try Google News if you wanted more. Sewebster 22:16, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am a little biased towards keeping articles about environmental issues and would like to see the article kept. The fact that it is a reletively new site means there are few references. Wikipedia is a cutting edge encyclopedia and is being written before anyone else gets around to it! Alan Liefting 03:53, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm the original author of the post. There are many press mentions under 'black google' and 'blackle', and ecoIron has gotten up to 60,000 hits/day on the article. I have other information for the page which I can add shortly. Can someone clarify why the article is up for deletion? MyTigers 8:06, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Why did somebody delete parts of the criticism without discussing it first? I had written about the fact that Blackle does not have quick links, such as Google Translator or Images.
It was moved to the above section, it's still there. MyTigers 14:03, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blackle.com. Alan Liefting 13:56, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm the one who started this article , n i don't know why this article should be deleted! When i heard about Blackle I searched Wikipedia just to realize that the page was deleted! I had to search several pages of the web just to find out what all the huge fuss was about Blackle. So i thought that i'd just create a Wiki as a one stop option for others interested about Blackle. Isn't that what Wiki is supposed to be? To just have all the answers u r looking for in just 1 webpage. This single criterion should be enough to NOT DELETE this page. I further wish if we could relocate it to Blackle once that page has been unlocked. Mac v 17:35, 5 August 2007 (UTC) [reply]

I concur with the author of the article. This is a legitimate subject of current interest. I used Wikipedia as a source of information about blackle! 58.165.232.170 08:58, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Me too. Jamie Kitson 11am 07-Aug-2007
I agree with the author. You are a troll to delete this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aaron Justin Giebel (talk • contribs) 04:43, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of monitors commentaries

[edit]

I'm very sorry, but I'm going to have to remove the sub-sections about the different types of monitor displays. Although they are very interesting, they can't stay in this article. Some of the info in these sub-sections belongs on articles about those display types. The rest is original research synthesis, meaning that different factual sources have been drawn on to forge well cited, but still original research, commentary on the subject in hand. In short, it fails WP:SYNTH. —gorgan_almighty 10:38, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • That's fine, I will include those sections in the parent page. Readers will need a reference to understand why blackle saves energy; this won't be possible without understanding the different monitor types. MyTigers 11:36, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Different monitor types are described in their own articles, that's why we have inter-linking. By all means write a parent article if you can, but I think you'll have trouble keeping original research out. —gorgan_almighty 11:52, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let me know when you are done here, I'll comment when you are finished. MyTigers 12:00, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

About edit conflicts

[edit]

We appear to have had a couple of accidental edit conflicts, because we were both editing the page at the same time. Normally I would try to restore the changes you made to the article, but I didn't in this case because I didn't agree with them. In particular, why did you put a {{neutrality}} tag into the criticism section? I know the old criticism section had one, but I've completely re-written it now, and I don't think there are any neutrality issues. On a separate note, I've finished making all the edits I was going to make for now. —gorgan_almighty 12:39, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks. Many items as labelled as claims which need to be changed to facts e.g. Blackle does save energy when used with certain monitor types. The monitor sections had this info but it was removed. The Roberson cite was completely removed which is genuine - it was mixed in with the informal studies. functionality is fine. Criticism is problematic because the cites have misleading information e.g. energy savings is only accrued using CRT monitors, which is false, so I'm not sure Techlogg is authoritative. I tried to strike a balance here, giving the informal studies and explaining the monitor type, which i crucial to undersatnding the issue. But if we are to only cite formal studies we have to go with Roberson, who found that all monitor types including LCD save energy using a black screen. I believe this is probably not the full story and probably be unfair to the readers of this page, but if those are the rules ok.
  • I sympathise with what you're trying to do, but additions like like fail WP:SYNTH. You need to find a news article (or other reliable source that mentions Blackle) and cite that instead. The problem with using the Robertson report inself is that although it makes certain statements, it doesn't directly apply them to Blackie. If you then apply them to Blackie in this article, it fails WP:SYNTH. —gorgan_almighty 13:20, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a disservice to the readers - we cant say source1 tried out Blackle and it didnt save energy (which in fact, it does admit for CRT monitors)and then not mention the definitive report on the matter that claims the reverse, as well as eliminating the entire explanation as to how a CRT or LCD monitor works. Think about it for a while and we'll figure something out. MyTigers 13:39, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The criticism section is good, but two items (a) Blackle makes no claim how much energy is saved using a CRT, they only refer to Roberson and DOE. Roberson states 4 to 30W, DOE states an average of 15. So I would rephrase as "found that the average power saving was lower than previously published studies and in a narrower range; cites would be helpful here. Also I would change the LCD part from "showed no power saving" to "showed increased power use" because that is the case.MyTigers 16:44, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, need to remove 'claim' from the beginning part 'who claim that certain types of computer monitors save substantial energy when displaying black as a background color." It is a fact that certain types of computer monitors save substantial energy when displaying black as a background color, as per all sources. MyTigers 16:46, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, CSR Asia names all of the other similar sites http://www.csr-asia.com/index.php?p=10412, i think they qualify as a source.MyTigers 16:50, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, need to unprotect Blackle MyTigers 16:52, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Upcoming Mods

[edit]

If there is no more discussion on these items, I am going to change the criticism phrasing to "found that the average power saving was lower than previously published studies and in a narrower range" and add cites. Also I will change the LCD part from "showed no power saving" to "showed increased power use"

also, add a sentence to the beginning 'who claim that certain types of computer monitors save substantial energy when displaying black as a background color." add "studies have verified the claim for CRT monitors, and are inconclusive for LCD monitors" and cite Roberson and Techlog.

also, add back in the alternative sites back in ala CSR asia

also, remove the neutrality

also, Ill write texasandroid and get Blackle unprotected. I'll do this tomorrow. please speak now if you have further comments. MyTigers 01:21, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Your proposed edition to the first paragraph is not correct. Roberson has not verified anything in relation to Blackle. The creators of Blackle have cited Roberson to back up their claims, but Roberson has not verified any claims made by Blackle. There is a very big difference. Also, Techlogg were unable to verify the quantity of power savings claimed by Blackle. To paraphrase Techlogg, the claims cannot be verified unless more information is given about the size and manufacturer of the CRT monitor. —gorgan_almighty 10:25, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consider this logically; the claim is "that certain types of computer monitors save substantial energy when displaying black as a background color". This is both empirically true, and verified through testing. CRT monitors shoot an stream of electrons at phosphors to make the color white, the do nothing to make black. It is simply impossible to use more energy doing nothing (black) than to do something (shoot electrons). This leads me back to the monitor question, and I'm now going to also recommend that parts of those CRT monitor and LCD monitor sections be put back in. Both Techlogg and Roberson verified the physical principle by which CRT monitors work and the principle by which LCD monitors work, not explaining this would be a disservice to the readership.
Techlogg comments about not verifying the claim (as written) is thereby false, you don't need any more information. You do need more information to calculate the 'substantial' energy savings, which is true. Now, substantial is a weasel word, and I think it should be eliminated. I doubt we can touch this - I put lots of cited items in earlier updates on this, and it was eliminated as original research. On this, I know of no studies that cover this, and there are sufficient moving parts to not treat it empircally.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by MyTigers (talk • contribs) 13:49, 7 August 2007
  • You are failing to understand the purpose of an encyclopedia. The fact that something is true is not a good enough reason to include it. If you have to "consider this logically" in order to understand why something was added to the article, then it shouldn't have been added. This is an encyclopedia, it's purpose is to document what other reliable sources have already documented. This is a tertiary source, not a primary source or a secondary source. If someone else has applied the Roberson findings to Blackle, then document their claim. Do not apply the Roberson findings to Blackle yourself, then call it a fact. That would be original research, and synthesised original reasearch at that. The fact that it is true does not stop it from being original research. In the same way I am fine with you adding information about how a CRT works, providing someone else has used that information to explain about Blackle. You can't add the information and make the connection yourself, as that would be synthesised original reasearch.
  • Too restrictive. An apple falls from a tree, the force acting on it is gravity. A pear falls from a tree - what force caused it to fall? You either include a reference to what gravity is, or you include references to other experiments that demonstrate the principle. Cathode ray tubes function a certain way, there is no research involved. Omitting this is deliberately withholding information that already exists in Wikipedia to promote of POV. Turn the statement into an assertion, or kill it entirely.


I realise that you are fairly new to Wikipedia (less than 150 edits, most of which involve this article), and you need to realise that you do not yet have a very good grasp of Wikipedia inclusion criteria. If you want to add information based solely of the fact that its true, you should be editing WikiBooks or Wikinfo, not Wikipedia.
—gorgan_almighty 14:18, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I can't respond to this, its immature and not in the proper spirit. I'm surprised you posted it for all to see. MyTigers 15:58, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


  • In my opinion, the current version of the criticism section (see permalink) is completely neutral and unbiased. It reports on the the notable criticisms that have been made, mentions the external testing that has been done, and puts that external testing in context. In other words, it states quite plainly that 4 of each type of monitor was used. The article makes no claims as to whether this is a good way of testing it or not. Removing this information, and replacing this with terms like "a narrower range" would be a detrimental change, as it would be a move towards POV. I propose that the criticism section be kept as it is, and the {{neutrality}} tag be removed. —gorgan_almighty 10:25, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It reads "found that the power saving of the CRT monitors was less than that claimed by Blackle, while the LCD monitors tested showed no power saving." As per above, the owners of Blackle have said nothing about the magnitude of energy saved, only that using Blackle saves energy on certain monitors. Now if they have said something about magnitude which is citable, then I'm fine. But if your want to compare magnitudes of savings, you must refer to DOE and Roberson, as they did say something about it. Otherwise, just reports the bare numbers that they found, the average and range for each type. Both you and I know that Blackle is trying to get away with something here, and it irritates me as much as you. But word cannot be placed in their mouths, nor can scientific facts be attributed to POV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MyTigers (talk • contribs) 13:49, 7 August 2007
  • You can add back the alternative sites into the "External links" section if you want, but I don't think they belong in this article. Being mentioned by CSR asia does not make them notable, as the article does not "address the subject directly in detail" as required by WP:N. In the same way, you wouldn't expect to find a link to Some-unknown-social-networking-site.com in the MySpace article. If you add them back I will not remove them myself, but if this article had more attention from other editors, someone else would remove them pretty quickly, calling it "linkspam".

More Discussion

[edit]

Adding this off line chat to the discussion

The information I added comes from reliable secondary sources (citations given), and is not equivalent to synthesised original research statements. I am working hard to try to phrase your changes in a way that will be acceptable. Please be patient. —gorgan_almighty 13:38, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I just read [the Roberson report], and not only does it fail to back up Blackle's claims, it actually backs up Blackle's critics' claims. I quote from page 19:
"Among CRTs, maximum on power appears to be associated with a white display, or a maximum-sized application window (which approximates a white display). Among the few LCD monitors in the table, the power used to display a white screen is indistinguishable from power used to display the desktop. Thus, it appears that display color is a significant determinant of on power for CRTs, but not for LCDs."
—gorgan_almighty 14:18, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, that's the same page I'm getting the info from, except its the table above where they compare white vs. black in the columns above - you can see there is a 0 to 3W savings. The desktop they refer is the (non-black) default desktop on the machine. That's why there are four columns in the table - desktop, application, white, and black. So the quote is right - displaying white is the same energy as displaying the non-black desktop, which I don't doubt. But displaying solid black is different - from the table. The rest of the quote I agree with "display color is a significant determinant of on power for CRTs, but not for LCDs". The key here is the word 'significant'. CRTs, OLED, and plasmas use radically different amounts of energy depending on the color displayed, for LCDs there not much difference, but this statement is oblivious to the direction of that savings.MyTigers 20:43, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What I believe has transpired is that some lcd screens dim the backlight when there is a lot of black on the screen, so black saves energy over white. There were problems with contrast and brightness doing that, so many manufacturers stopped doing that since 2002. If you want to say techlogg tested 4 lcd monitors and they used more power displaying black and not reference Roberson, that's ok by me. But the blanket statement that all lcd monitors from all manufacturers use more energy displaying a black screen than a white screen is not proven and should not be construed a such.

The main criticism is that Blackle doesnt say that the savings are minimal using lcd screens, thats the legitmate criticism. When you get a chance, can you comment of the blackle discussion to finish the edits. MyTigers 18:11, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eyesight

[edit]

Should we mention the benefit done to the eyes by reading from a black background. Maddoxx from the Best Website in the Universe mentions that he has a black background on his site for this reason. He claims that monitors are not pieces of paper even though we'd like to think they are and making the background white is like making it a light bulb. Thus, sitting for hours staring at the monitor is equivalent to staring at a light bulb. I use Blackle for this reason. I find it's much easier on the eyes. Any thoughts on this? Should it be mentioned in the article? Jstanierm 01:10, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Energy Saving through marketing

[edit]

One need to also consider if Blackle.com is helping save energy by spreading the word. After all there own website states that it urges people to use it as the home page to remind us that we need to save energy. potentially the energy saved thanks to that "guilt" factor is much more than can ever be saved by black screens.

But this is beyond Original Research .. its just a hypothesis. Is there a wikipedia template to tell people that this article is subject to current and ongoing original research that might still be unpublished but might be reported in the talk page?

--Inkiwna 15:01, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A bit of fun

[edit]

Has anyone tried doing searches for "Wikipedia" on both Google and Blackle?

  • The results on Google, in order, are www.wikipedia.org, with en, es, fr and de as subsections, followed by the en Main Page, with our article on Wikipedia as a subsection, followed by the Swahili Wikipedia, and so on. The article on Wikipedia is the only article displayed on the first page of 10 Google results. The rest are main pages, and one Apple "Dashboard gadget".
  • The results on Blackle, however, are still very different (despite claims in the article a moment ago). The first result is our article on Global Warming. Second is the www.wikipedia.org, non-specific Wikipedia homepage. Third, our article on environment. Then the Swahili language Wikipedia in fourth, somehow making it above even the English language Wikipedia in the results. Next, it's Energy conservation, and then Effects of global warming, and so on. If Wikipedia had a "rolling eyes" emoticon, I would put it here. --Dreaded Walrus t c 08:09, 20 September 2007 (UTC) And I would have provided a direct link to the Blackle search results, but the URL was too long. --Dreaded Walrus t c 08:09, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blackle does indeed seem to promote "environmentally friendly" web pages before other. Blackle global warming, and at least five advertisements will come up. Left long enough, the page will change to the first advert result.--68.193.163.234 (talk) 00:07, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blackle uses google custom search, which allows an adsense publisher to specify 'keywords' that bias the search in some direction. For example, a google custom search box on a maths website and one on a fishing website might give totally different results for "lines". I can only assume Heap Media has used this feature to bias search results towards environmental issues. mike40033 (talk) 02:38, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Recent criticism

[edit]

gorgan_almighty said: "Removed unverified claims. Claims like that MUST be cited, or not made at all"

MyTigers said :"disagree, this is worthy. I was skeptical as well, but this is true and notable."

I'm afraid that paragraph is more than just uncited criticism. Unless someone can find a reliable source to back it up, it's an unfounded accusation of corruption, which amounts to liable. We need to be very careful about accusations like that, so true or not, it should be removed until a reliable source can be found to back it up. —gorgan_almighty 16:49, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've added neutrality. If this is the case, the entire functionality section must be removed as unverifiable. Take "The iGoogle feature is also lacking in Blackle." for example. There is no documentation of this claim, but inspection of the site will show that it is valid. Obviously, inherent factual content about the topic should remain, and content should no be selectively pruned .MyTigers 11:49, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ideally the Functionality section should be cited, but it's not too important in that case because it is easily verifiable. But that doesn't apply to the second paragraph in the criticism section, because it isn't as easily verifiable. Also, we should scrutinize critical sections much more than sections that simply list the features, because there is more chance of inaccuracies and POV creeping in. I agree with tagging the section, but tagging isn't an alternative to fixing it. The paragraph should still be removed. That is what would happen pretty quickly if it were on an article that received more editor attention. —gorgan_almighty 09:48, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • How about rewording and moving into functionality then, a one sentence thing. "Blackle is also part of Googles Adsense program; as such, its search results are skewed by the environmental nature of the site." This is how Adsense works, and it is easily verifiable.MyTigers 15:43, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Blackle is part of the Google Adsense program". <-- That sentence is fine and should be added to the functionality section. But the bit about it's search results being skewed should go in the criticism section, and it needs citation. I'm also not totally convinced that that's what the current criticism paragraph is trying to suggest. —gorgan_almighty 15:51, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll move it up there MyTigers 18:13, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

What to do about links to other sites that are related? I have been deleting these but they keep popping up. How about another page of links, or a parent article. Pretty sure they don't belong here.MyTigers 21:41, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Had a question on Power Google? Should this site represent? Have found references of it with alternative site in many articles discussing about Blackle. I have added a citation already in the page. If you feel it is insignificant, then it be removed. Wikion (talk) 08:33, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Broken link report: the external link to US Department of Energy (www.microtech.doe.gov/energy star/info.htm#display) is broken, as of this date, Nov 9, 2008. Here is a link to the current USDOE discussion of Energy Star monitors and power consumption: http://www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?fuseaction=find_a_product.showProductGroup&pgw_code=MO. Related to the subject of power consumption by computing machinery in general is this link to the US Energy Star web site, for a discussion and links to resources for managing power consumption across an enterprise: http://www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?c=power_mgt.pr_power_mgt_implementation_res#tech_assistance. After attempting to follow the broken link to microtech.doe.gov, my ISP offered a suggestion page, containing this link: http://www.freedownloadmanager.org/downloads/doe_software/, which provides a link for a freeware wizard, released in 2001, to make it convenient to manage your power settings. The freedownloadmanager page contains a link to the www.microtech.doe.gov site, but following the link leads to another page on the freedownloadmanager site. Although a discussion of power management is not directly related to a discussion of how various display technologies consume power, it is related to the overarching subject of power consumption by computing machinery, and thus perhaps deserves a place in an "external link". 98.144.13.252 (talk) 22:11, 9 November 2008 (UTC)David Hewitt[reply]

Memories

[edit]

This reminds me of a Toyota Prius. --  Boogster  Go!  00:21, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Possible

[edit]

I think this should be moved to simply "Blackle".   jj137 ♠ Talk 01:39, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First paragraph

[edit]

The first paragraph is lacking description and has misleading information. The website is powered by Google Custom Search. It is not developed by Heap Media as the article claims, the code has been written by Google. Blackle simply provides the domain name. I also added a summary that described the principle of the website, as per Wikipedia:Layout#First_paragraph, but it has been reverted --Nezek (talk) 22:44, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I had forgotten about this. Since there have been no objections, I'm gonna go ahead and restore it (+refs). After checking the refs the article currently provides for the lead, there's actually no claim that it's developed by Heap, one of the two refs is even called "Google goes black to go green" --Nezek (talk) 23:40, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

functionallity section removed

[edit]

I went ahead and removed the functionallity section. It had no citation and looked a lot like WP:OR, and also wasn't relevant or notable to this article specifically as it addressed issues of all google custom searches. In case you want to add it to the appropriate article, you can view in this diff [1] --Nezek (talk) 01:37, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism from The Climate Savers Computing Initiative?

[edit]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackle.com#Criticism "The Climate Savers Computing Initiative, a consortium of large software and hardware vendors, that promotes efficient computing on a large scale, forecasted a power saving of only 10,000 Megawatts by 2010. [6]"

[1] "Pat Gelsinger, Senior Vice President and General Manager of Intel's Digital Enterprise Group added, 'By 2010, the Climate Savers Computing Initiative will cut greenhouse gas emissions in an amount equal to removing more than 11 million cars from the road or shutting down 20 500-megawatt coal-fired power plants -- a significant step in reducing the emissions affecting our planet..."

It seems there was a misinterpretation--the source says that Pat Gelsinger was the one who forcasted the power saving, and no such criticism of blackle.com, as implied in the wikipedia article, was made. So I'm going to go ahead and remove that part of the subtopic. I hope that's alright with everybody.

Also, keep in mind the difference between power and energy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watt#Confusion_of_watts_and_watt-hours

SkpVwls (talk) 18:46, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is black the new green? is a nice source for criticisms of blackle.com, if anyone would like to add more to this subtopic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SkpVwls (talk • contribs) 19:30, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Google Joins Energy Saving Initiative". Submit Express. Retrieved 7 December 2015.

Vandalism

[edit]

Is it my imagination, or does this page attract an above-average amount of vandalism? It seems that every second time I check my watchlist, someone's added some over-the-top praise or completely false claims about Blackle. What gives?? mike40033 (talk) 05:24, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do not agree --Aaron Justin Giebel (talk) 22:18, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Other sites

[edit]

There are others sites like this bpled.com "black google" don't they deserve a mention? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.36.172.44 (talk) 13:26, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That site has been spammed to this and other articles. A lot. So no, in my opinion it should not get a mention unless it becomes notable enough to have an article (in which case there could be a see-also Wikilink to it). --bonadea contributions talk 12:31, 26 October 2009 (UTC) one more thing blackle was created by a man named jonothin ilastrated by hart richerd[reply]

No. I is no longer a website[1] --Aaron Justin Giebel (talk) 22:20, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ bpled.com. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help); Missing or empty |url= (help)

Disputed

[edit]

I totally dispute the claims made in this article. Whilst I do not dispute that Blackle have made the claims that they have, they are totally false because Blackle have overlooked something.

I have no doubt that Blackle have assumed that a CRT based computer monitor based on an average sized delta-gun tube has a total beam current of about 1 mA. At 25,000 volts, that is 25 watts of power being delivered by the EHT supply. Blackle have doubtless assumed that for a black picture, where the guns are cut off, the tube consumes zero power. Factor the saving downward slightly to account for the fact that some visible picture must be present, multiply by the number of monitors and time and you have the alleged energy saving.

Unfortunately, it's a myth. What has been overlooked is that colour display tubes have to be supplied from a stabilised EHT supply (otherwise the picture would get smaller as the brightness reduces). That stabilisation is invariably from a shunt stabilised supply (because historically, the stabiliser tube could be controlled using a relatively low voltage of about 30-40 volts). More modern monitors use a tripler circuit to supply the EHT, but this too contains a shunt connected voltage dependant resistor to stabilise the supply. The principle of operation of a shunt stabiliser is that any current that does not flow through the CRT flows through the stabiliser instead, keeping the EHT voltage practically constant. Thus: as the beam current reduces (as the overall picture gets darker), the stabiliser current rises to keep the EHT current constant (and hence power and energy).

If the CRT is displaying a black picture, it dissipates little or no power. But the stabiliser element is now dissipating the entire 25 watts that Blackle though they were saving and that is the power being delivered by the EHT circuit regardless of the displayed brightness. The energy saving is therefore zero.

There is no saving for an LCD monitor either because the backlight tube (or LEDs) emit the same amount of light regardless of what is displayed. 86.149.142.3 (talk) 17:32, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We specificly mention that they "claimed" to have saved that power. We are not endorsing the claim. Aaron Justin Giebel (talk) 22:21, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Blackle&oldid=1200131557"