Misplaced Pages

Talk:ResellerRatings: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 22:45, 18 December 2014 editTechimo (talk | contribs)383 edits →Source issues: IR source comment← Previous edit Latest revision as of 18:29, 8 February 2024 edit undoCewbot (talk | contribs)Bots7,722,686 editsm Maintain {{WPBS}} and vital articles: 2 WikiProject templates. Create {{WPBS}}. Keep majority rating "Start" in {{WPBS}}. Remove 2 same ratings as {{WPBS}} in {{WikiProject Websites}}, {{WikiProject Companies}}.Tag: Talk banner shell conversion 
(94 intermediate revisions by 17 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{WikiProject Websites|class=start|importance=low}} {{WikiProject banner shell|class=Start|
{{WikiProject Companies|class=start|importance=low}} {{WikiProject Websites|importance=low}}
{{WikiProject Companies|importance=low}}
}}


Observing the evolution of Reseller Ratings (RR) over the years has been interesting. Observing the evolution of Reseller Ratings (RR) over the years has been interesting.
Line 11: Line 13:


Just sumpthin' to consider as I, the Mighty Obbop, of rotund flabby physique and a startling lingering hankering for greasy fried vittles. ] (]) 04:37, 15 December 2009 (UTC) Just sumpthin' to consider as I, the Mighty Obbop, of rotund flabby physique and a startling lingering hankering for greasy fried vittles. ] (]) 04:37, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

== Disarming the ongoing edit war ==

: 72.185.28.160
Someone is personally engaged in an edit war regarding this Misplaced Pages entry, particularly based around personal opinions. An URL link to forum posts of opinions is not a citation of fact under encyclopedia guidelines. Opinions need to be taken to the proper venue(s), which is not Misplaced Pages. If the activity continues, the entry will be suggested for protection. ] (]) 21:09, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

: NotTechimo
This is nonsense. I have cited other sources including ResellerRatings own terms of service. My edits have nothing to do with personal opinion. People have made claims of extortion. I've cited that. The site has increased it's fees while burying the notices in marketing emails. That's not opinion. Stores cannot respond, comment, or flag reviews without paying a fee to ResellerRatings. That is not opinion. Google Product Search has been rebranded to Google Shopping and merchants ratings are powered by other sites, such as TrustPilot. That is not personal opinion. Bing Shopping hasn't existed for over a year. Not opinion. My edits are valid. In that you have written the main article for ResellerRatings' founder, it's highly suspect that you are Scott Wainner and are too close to the subject of ResellerRatings to even be contributing at all in an unbiased manner. ] (]) 12:19, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

: 72.185.28.160
Just like you, the actions associated with my IP address are logged. Rest assured, I am not "Scott Wainner" or whatever person with which you seem to have a problem. You are engaged in an edit war, which is not welcome or tolerated at Wiki. At face value, it seems you have a strong disgruntled attitude towards the particular business and/or perhaps someone associated with the business, thus you have distinct bias. Additionally, you are engaged in original research. Please read Wiki terms. ] (]) 16:12, 11 December 2014 (UTC)


: NotTechimo
Nice dodge on disputing the factual statements I've made in the article that you keep removing. Regardless of who you claim to be or not, facts are facts. Misplaced Pages is not advertising space. There are negative aspects to this business which are factual that I am adding to the article. Those facts have nothing to do with my opinion of the business. You are the one engaged in the editing war, continually removing factual statements and updated information. Leave the article alone so that it includes both positives and negatives of this business. Further, "Bing Shopping" and "Google Product Search" do not exist any longer. And, Google draws merchants ratings from multiple review sites, not just this one. Stop rewriting this article as if it's a glowing review of this business, along with your dated information on Google and Bing.] (]) 18:03, 11 December 2014 (UTC)


: Techimo
First, your edits are being reverted by multiple editors: not one. Second, you obviously have an axe to grind against ResellerRatings and your edits reflect this clearly. You deleted facts about the business' customers, to bolster your anti-RR position. You added "merchants must pay a fee", again, to bolster your position, even though the text clearly says that merchants MAY pay a fee. You added supposedly cited info regarding "controversy", again to bolster your anti-RR position. All I've done is revert your edits: I've added nothing as you claim. Misplaced Pages is a place for neutral parties to add/edit, not for a merchant to edit a page about a ratings site that he doesn't like. I will continue to revert your edits until an admin locks the page from your vandalism because your agenda is not neutral and your position is not unbiased. The original text of this article was contributed by 45 Misplaced Pages editors over 7 years and your "contributions" are agenda-laden edits which are creating a massively distorted view on what is otherwise a neutral, fact-based article. <small><span class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 21:16, 17 December 2014 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->


: NotTechimo
Fascinating how your only other contribution to Misplaced Pages is the article on Scott Wainer. It's obvious that you are Scott Wainer, former owner of the company. As for my edits, they are correct. Merchants MUST pay a fee to enjoy the "services" you promote in this article. Non-paying merchants have no such opportunity to dispute reviews, flag them, or comment on them. That has caused controversy and I've cited multiple sources to back it up. This isn't anything you haven't heard before, Scott. You're obviously upset that you want to spin PR here about how great you think your business was, without including any of the negatives. Being that you ran a site where information was provided by people other than yourself, one would think that you'd have no problem with factual contributions. That is, after all, what ResellerRatings is all about. Right? You are the one, sir, who is biased and not neutral. Facts are facts. And, as far as removing the listing of other websites that are paying members of ResellerRatings, it's rather irrelevant, and reads more like PR than anything worthy of being included in the article. Lastly, if you go back over the history of this article, you'll see that you've engaged in this type of war with other people who've attempted to include something other than glowing PR about the company. It is you, sir, that has the agenda. Not me. I'm simply adding pertinent information about the company, which you just happen to dislike. Your dislike is not my concern. Creating a well rounded article that includes other aspects of the company, is.] (]) 02:02, 18 December 2014 (UTC)


: Techimo
I have no interest in RR whatsoever. You, D.D., have a clear conflict of interest as an online merchant in editing an article about a merchant ratings site that you don't like. You're undoing years old edits by 45 editors. By adding information that bashes RR, you're serving your personal agenda: you're not fairly representing the facts or history. Your view is tainted by your conflict. You're not the right person to be editing this page by Misplaced Pages's standards (https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest). A neutral party who doesn't derive revenue from internet retail sales and who isn't directly affected by RR, should be editing this article. A customer list is a customer list and you can't rewrite history in an effort to make RR appear less influential than it is in reality. Your view of "Controversy" isn't supported by any relevant source: one guy in a video isn't source, and neither is an anonymous discussion thread. Articles are supposed to be written from a neutral point of view (https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view), not a negative/agenda driven view based upon the editor's personal dislike of a subject.

In the spirit of Misplaced Pages, I've collaborated on your last edit. I would like to not waste any more of my life on defending the neutrality of this page and I should hope you would agree as to your own time. <small><span class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 03:10, 18 December 2014 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

]
] (]) 04:24, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

32.211.179.232 you are edit warning from a dynamic IP undoing my constructive edits. You're clearly the same person as has been modifying this page substantially since 12/3/2014. ] (]) 06:41, 18 December 2014 (UTC)


: NotTechimo
You are or were most definitely affiliated with RR, or RR's reputation management company. Again, your only other contrib to Misplaced Pages is the article on Scott Wainer, the former owner of RR. That's the biggest COI there is. Period. Regardless of who I am, the additional information I'm attempting to add to the article exposes other aspects of the company that you, apparently, do not want known. It's either your job to not want those aspects known, or perhaps it hurts your ego. Either way, RR's reputation with merchants is questionable, to say the least, and I feel that aspect needs to be included.

You state that my sources aren't sufficient, so I provide more, and now those are no good either. Shall I just provide every single result of googling "ResellerRatings extortion"? Seriously, there will be pages of citations. As far as "one guy in a video", that one guy happens to be a merchant. The claim is that the business' ethics and model cause controversy with merchants, therefore, most of the citations are from merchants. There is also a citation from a reputable news source regarding the hiking of RR's fees, while burying the notice about those fees in marketing text. I'm unclear how that is not a decent citation. Nevertheless, if you want some of the citations removed, I'm negotiable on that. I refuse, however, to remove the data entirely as it is factual and you have not disputed the statements, only the citations. If something I've stated is not factual, tell me what it is.

Lastly, as for being directly affected by RR, I am not and couldn't care less about what appears on RR's site. For example, RR has little to no meaning for any business that utilizes its competitors. You're the one directly affected by RR, for sure. And, if you've got better things to do with your life than continually rewrite this page as PR for your former business, then, by all means, please go do them. ] (]) 14:50, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

== Protected edit request on 18 December 2014 ==

{{edit protected|ResellerRatings|answered=no}}
<!-- Begin request -->
== Source issues ==
These sources cited for this article are not reliable encyclopedic sources, are subjective/opinion not researched, and/or anonymous user generated or ], and are ].

# https://productforums.google.com/forum/#!topic/merchant-center/3nUkaO_hLhU
# https://www.facebook.com/pages/Resellerratingscom-Scam/102838613191162
# https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dUK6x3wBGk0
# http://www.resellerratingsclassaction.com/
# https://productforums.google.com/forum/#!topic/merchant-center/PuEgT_hK9ws
# http://www.rossmanngroup.com/resellerratings-com-or-extortion-the-process-of-establishing-credibility-in-the-marketplace/
# http://www.quora.com/Is-the-ResellerRatings-com-business-model-an-illegal-racket
# http://www.convergent7.com/forum/general/ecommerce-industry/1064-resellerratings-again.html

Controversy section is thus not applicable / not well sourced and doesn't belong. The other source links to ResellerRatings' own website don't establish controversy. Editor didn't establish that there is any material controversy and is only stating his (unsourced) opinion. Perhaps one sentence added to the History section regarding the Internet Retailer article source may be appropriate, instead.
] (])

== NPOV issue ==
"large membership fee" text is opinion/subjective and not NPOV.
<!-- End request -->
] (]) 22:10, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 18:29, 8 February 2024

This article is rated Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject iconWebsites: Computing Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is part of WikiProject Websites, an attempt to create and link together articles about the major websites on the web. To participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.WebsitesWikipedia:WikiProject WebsitesTemplate:WikiProject WebsitesWebsites
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Computing.
WikiProject iconCompanies Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Companies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of companies on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CompaniesWikipedia:WikiProject CompaniesTemplate:WikiProject Companiescompany
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Companies To-do:

 Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Observing the evolution of Reseller Ratings (RR) over the years has been interesting.

The ratings of on-line e-commerce firms has been helpful to me and when I have had good experiences with a non-listed firm I added it to the RR ratings.

One observation. Reviews may have to be taken with the proverbial salt grain. I had multiple excellent experiences for several years with an on-line seller of used music CDs. Every used CD looked akin to new and nary a mistake ever made with the order. Yet, another reviewer lambasted the firm. Was it a competing on-line firm that added that negative? Could a cohort of folks lie to influence ratings, either to make a firm appear positive or negative?

That may be a defect with the reviewing plan as implemented by RR. If only work computers were used a tech-type may be able to view a common source but what with so many folks having Web access at home it may be difficult to determine a mass effort to make one's employer appear good or a competitor appear bad.

Just sumpthin' to consider as I, the Mighty Obbop, of rotund flabby physique and a startling lingering hankering for greasy fried vittles. Obbop (talk) 04:37, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Categories: