Talk:Fast Duplicate File Finder

This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Software: Computing Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Software, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of software on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SoftwareWikipedia:WikiProject SoftwareTemplate:WikiProject Softwaresoftware Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Computing.

This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest was declined. The request was not specific enough. You may consider leaving your comments on the Talk page or escalating significant issues to the conflict of interest noticeboard.

Disclosing per Wikipedia's conflict of interest guideline: I have a connection to MindGems Inc., the developer of this software, and am therefore posting here rather than editing the article directly. I would like to ask independent editors to review the article's sourcing and determine whether it could be improved with additional independent references. The article currently relies on a limited number of sources. The following independent coverage may be useful when evaluating whether the article can be expanded or updated: How-To Geek: https://www.howtogeek.com/1528/fast-duplicate-file-finder-easily-identifies/ OnlineComputerTips: https://onlinecomputertips.com/support-categories/software/find-duplicate-files-on-computer/ TechSpot: https://www.techspot.com/downloads/6653-fast-duplicate-file-finder.html CNET developer page: https://download.cnet.com/developer/mindgems/i-114140/ Additional software directories such as BleepingComputer and Uptodown may also provide useful factual information, although they may be less suitable as independent editorial sources. I am not requesting any specific edits. I am simply requesting that independent editors review the available sourcing and determine whether the article could be improved or expanded in accordance with Wikipedia's content policies. Thank you for your time and consideration. JackTaylorMG (talk) JackTaylorMG (talk) 19:24, 26 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

  Clarification requested  

• To expedite your request, it would help if you could provide the following information:

1. Please state each specific desired change and accompanying reference in the form of verbatim statements which can then be added to the article (if approved) by the reviewer.
2. The exact location where the desired claims are to be placed should be given.
3. Exact, verbatim descriptions of any text and/or references to be removed should also be given.^[1]
4. Reasons should be provided for each change.^[2]

• In the section of text below titled Sample edit request, the four required items are shown as an example:

• Kindly open a new edit request at your earliest convenience when ready to proceed with all four items from your request.

Thank you! Regards,  Spintendo  05:04, 3 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hi @Spintendo

Thank you for the detailed guidance — I've prepared five specific edit proposals below, each following the requested format (text to remove, text to add, reference, and reason). These address the outdated content and the "more citations needed" tag using independent sources. Please feel free to adjust wording, trim, or decline any part you feel doesn't meet the article's standards.

EDIT: I removed the repeating edit proposals from here, as I did not see that you told me to open a new edit request. I did that now and moved them there.

--- JackTaylorMG (talk) 17:40, 3 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Part of an edit requested by an editor with a conflict of interest has been implemented.

Following up on the format requested by Spintendo in the thread above, here are five specific, sourced changes for review. Disclosure: I have a connection to MindGems Inc., the developer of this software.

Thank you for reviewing. JackTaylorMG (talk) JackTaylorMG (talk) 15:32, 10 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

  Edit request partially implemented  

• The review section in this article offers a unique set of circumstances. Where product reviews are usually straightforward, these reviews for the File Finding program found pros and cons with nearly every corner of this software.
• So, posting information from these reviews requires an editor who wishes to be brief to (1) cherry pick which part of the software to comment on, or an editor who wishes to be neutral with plenty of time to burn to (2) offer a properly-paraphrased, in-depth review of the entire software and all its numerous pros and cons. Both are unacceptable.
• A third option is to simply offer links to the reviews and let readers peruse them and all the detailed minutiae at their leisure. Seeing as how the article is a stub, I've opted for this third option. Unfortunately this deprives the article of any sources (I've applied the {{No sources}} maintenance template) but given the circumstances of these reviews and my wish to avoid the article from becoming WP:NOTECHGUIDE, I think it's the right choice.

Regards,  Spintendo  23:42, 25 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Thank you again for taking the time to look at this. I want to flag one concern with the current version: the citations are now formatted as bare bullet points without <ref> tags or {{reflist}}, so they no longer function as verifiable inline references, which seems to be exactly why the {{No sources}} tag was needed. As it stands, the article has gone from having (admittedly imperfect) sourced prose to having no functioning citations at all, which reads as a step backward rather than forward.

On the mixed-reviews point, it's worth noting the software has been on the market for roughly 25 years, and each of these reviews covers a different version from a different year (2009, 2011, 2013, 2024). Some variation between reviews seems expected for a product with that long a development history, rather than a sign of inconsistent quality within a single version.

Would you be open to restoring the Reception section's prose, using the corrected wording I proposed earlier (particularly fixing the Overclockers.com mischaracterization), with the four sources properly wrapped in <ref> tags and a {{reflist}}? That would resolve the {{No sources}} tag while still addressing your concern about the reviews being mixed. The corrected text stays close to the neutral, factual tone of the original rather than expanding into a fuller pro/con summary.

Separately, I noticed the How-To Geek citation from my original request doesn't appear to have been added. Was that intentionally left out, or did it get missed in the update?

Happy to defer to your judgment on tone and phrasing either way. Just want to make sure the article ends up with working citations rather than none. Thanks for your patience with this. JackTaylorMG (talk) 11:08, 26 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

The user below has a request that an edit be made to Fast Duplicate File Finder. That user has an actual or apparent conflict of interest. The requested edits backlog is very high. Please be extremely patient. There are currently 609 requests waiting for review. Please read the instructions for the parameters used by this template for accepting and declining them, and review the request below and make the edit if it is well sourced, neutral, and follows other Wikipedia guidelines and policies.

Disclosure: I have a connection to MindGems Inc., the developer of this software, per my earlier disclosure above.

This request has been open in various forms since June 2026 (see discussion above with Spintendo). To make this as easy as possible to action for any reviewing editor, I'm providing the complete, ready-to-use replacement article below.

For context, I want to note that the article's current live version is, in some respects, less complete than the version that existed before this request was opened:

• The Reception section's citations are currently formatted as bare bullet points without <ref> tags or a {{reflist}}, so they no longer function as verifiable inline references. This appears to be the reason the {{No sources}} maintenance tag was added — meaning the article has gone from having sourced (if incomplete) prose to having no functioning citations at all.
• One of the current bullet points labels a source as "OCT.com," which is not the name of the publication. The source is OnlineComputerTips, and "OCT.com" does not appear to correspond to any actual website associated with that publication.
• Two corrections agreed upon earlier in this discussion do not appear to have been incorporated: the mischaracterization of the Overclockers.com review (it discusses speed and ease of use, not "quality of results," as the previous prose stated) and the addition of the How-To Geek citation, both proposed on 10 July 2026.

On the broader point raised on 25 July 2026 about the reviews being mixed: this software has been on the market for roughly 25 years, and the four reviews cited span four different years (2009, 2011, 2013, 2024) and, in some cases, different versions of the product. Some variation in emphasis between reviews written over a 15-year span seems expected for a long-running product, rather than a sign of inconsistent quality within any single version. I don't think this need prevent the reviews from being cited factually and neutrally, as they were before this request was opened.

The proposed replacement below restores the original Reception prose, keeping its existing wording intact except for the specific corrections discussed above, and extends it with the two additional citations previously agreed upon. It also restores working inline citations throughout and keeps the OS compatibility update already made.

Proposed full article text:

{{Multiple issues|
{{COI|date=October 2022}}
{{Orphan|date=September 2023}}
}}
{{Infobox software 
| name                   = Fast Duplicate File Finder
| screenshot             = [[File:Duplicate File Finder.png|200px]]
| developer              = MindGems Inc.
| operating_system  	 = [[Microsoft Windows]]
| platform               = [[IA-32|Intel x86 32-bit]] and [[x64]]
| language               = English
| genre                  = [[File managers]]
| license                = [[Freemium]]
| website                = {{URL|http://www.mindgems.com/}}
}}
'''Fast Duplicate File Finder''' is a [[Windows]] tool developed by MindGems Inc, available as a [[freeware]] version and a full commercial version. It is intended to scan a user's computer for duplicate files, display a list of such files and let the user [[data deduplication|delete unneeded copies]] with the purpose of freeing up hard drive space. It is compatible with Windows 11, 10, 8.1, 8, and 7, as well as Windows Server 2008 and newer, in both 32-bit and 64-bit versions.<ref>{{cite web |title=Duplicate File Finder - Find and Remove Duplicate Files Free |url=https://www.mindgems.com/products/Fast-Duplicate-File-Finder/Fast-Duplicate-File-Finder-About.htm |website=MindGems |accessdate=3 July 2026 |quote=Operating system: Windows 11 / Windows 10 / Windows 8.1 / Windows 8 / Windows 7 / Windows Server 2008 and newer}}</ref>
==Reception==
The product has received positive reviews. PCWorld.com, as of March 2, 2011, was positive about the speed,<ref>{{cite web |title=Fast Duplicate File Finder |url=https://www.pcworld.com/article/485841/fast_duplicate_file_finder.html |author=Preston Gralla |work=PCWorld |date=2 March 2011 |accessdate=3 July 2026}}</ref> Overclockers.com praised the software's speed and ease of use, noting it located duplicate files in under ten seconds and that the reviewer was "amazed at how many dupes showed up,"<ref>{{cite web|last=Citarella|first=Joe|title=Fast Duplicate File Finder - Freeware Utility|url=http://www.overclockers.com/fast-duplicate-file-finder-freeware-utility/|date=June 18, 2009|work=Overclockers Review|accessdate=14 February 2013}}</ref> whilst CNET observed the finding similar files being slower and that the free version was limited compared to the Pro version.<ref>{{cite web|title=Fast Duplicate File Finder - CNET Download.com|url=http://download.cnet.com/Fast-Duplicate-File-Finder/3000-2248_4-75183786.html|date=January 18, 2011 |work=CNET Review|accessdate=14 February 2013}}</ref> How-To Geek reviewed the software in 2009, describing it as an effective tool for locating duplicate files across a computer, including removable and network drives.<ref>{{cite web |title=Fast Duplicate File Finder Identifies Extra Copies |url=https://www.howtogeek.com/1528/fast-duplicate-file-finder-easily-identifies/ |author=Brian Burgess |work=How-To Geek |date=16 June 2009 |accessdate=3 July 2026}}</ref> In 2026, OnlineComputerTips conducted a performance benchmark, scanning 1.3 million files and reporting no false positives in duplicate detection.<ref>{{cite web |title=Find Duplicate Files and then Copy, Move or Delete Them |url=https://onlinecomputertips.com/support-categories/software/find-duplicate-files-on-computer/ |author=Dan Edmunds |work=OnlineComputerTips |date=7 July 2024 |others=Updated 3 July 2026 |accessdate=3 July 2026}}</ref>
==References==
{{reflist}}
==External links==
* {{Official|https://www.mindgems.com/products/Fast-Duplicate-File-Finder/Fast-Duplicate-File-Finder-About.htm}}
[[Category:File managers]]

I'd be grateful if any editor could review and apply this if it meets the article's standards. Happy to answer any questions or adjust wording as needed. Thank you.

--JackTaylorMG (talk) 13:48, 2 August 2026 (UTC)Reply