Talk:ResellerRatings: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 10:29, 27 January 2016 editZeroShadows (talk \| contribs)163 edits →Criticism ← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 18:29, 8 February 2024 edit undoCewbot (talk \| contribs)Bots7,716,778 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
(13 intermediate revisions by 4 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 ==

	Note: For clarity in the somewhat confusing discussion below, "]" was blocked from Misplaced Pages indefinitely by ] at 04:16, 19 December 2014 (UTC) for impersonating another user (me) and for registering his/her account in bad faith. Later, IP 71.235.154.73 was also blocked by ] at 11:44, 25 December 2014 (UTC). Disruptive edits of this talk page continued from another IP, so the page was protected by ] at 02:51, 26 December 2014 (UTC). ] (]) 06:52, 26 December 2014 (UTC)


	: 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. ] (]) 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 "..." 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 someone to edit a page about a ratings site that s/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">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 21:16, 17 December 2014 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->


	: NotTechimo
	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. You're obviously upset that you want to spin PR here about how great you think the business is, without including any of the negatives. 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'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). 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.<small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 03:10, 18 December 2014 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

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

	== Protected edit request on 18 December 2014 ==

	{{edit protected\|ResellerRatings\|answered=yes}}
	<!-- Begin request -->

	=== Source issues ===
	The sources cited for this article are not reliable published sources, are subjective/opinion not researched, and/or anonymous user generated or ], and are ].

	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. The editor (who submitted this section edit hundreds of times from 12/3/2014 to 12/18/2014 from two IPs and a new user account) didn't establish that there is any material controversy and is only stating his (unsourced) opinion.
	] (]) 04:56, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

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

	:] '''Not done:'''<!-- Template:EP --> {{ping\|NotTechimo}} Sorry, but this request isn't actionable as it is written. You need to be much more specific, i.e. propose the exact text that you would like removed or changed, and the exact text that it should be replaced with. You also need to wait for a few days for discussion to make sure that your proposed changes have ]; protected edit requests should only be made for edits that already have consensus. — ''''']''''' <sup>]</sup> 03:39, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

	::Hi {{ping\|Mr. Stradivarius}} . Regarding the protected edit request for ], I read that if it's straightforward and incontrovertible, the request can be made. The request I sought was to remove the self-published, user generated sources that the editor provided (all of the sources I flagged were to youtube, forums, Facebook, or an anti-ResellerRatings site). Is consensus needed even though the sources are clearly not allowed under Misplaced Pages rules? Also, there may be some confusion: my username is Techimo, which I've had for many years. The other editor was editing from an IP address and then mockingly registered "NotTechimo". I am not affiliated with him in any way. He popped up on Misplaced Pages on 12/2 and put forth hundreds of edits of the ResellerRatings page in order to discredit the page. Should I re-propose an edit using specific language regarding the removal of the disallowed sources? Is there some other channel I should use to have someone come in and decide on the most appropriate edits during the protected period? Thanks.
	::] (]) 04:10, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

	:::{{ping\|Techimo}} Ah, yes, I see I mistook who made the edit request. I decided that the simplest thing would just be to revert to the April 1 2014 version before the edit war began. If there are any other things you would like to add, please propose the exact text in a new edit request (small edit requests work better) and wait for discussion as I outlined above. I've also blocked ], as the account was obviously not created in good faith. — ''''']''''' <sup>]</sup> 04:30, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
	::::{{ping\|Mr. Stradivarius}} Thank you! ] (]) 04:37, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

	== Disallowed Sources ==

	The Controversy section is opinion (and original research) without a reliable source. The point of Misplaced Pages is to hold articles to a higher standard than simple user opinion and conjecture, hence the requirement that sources be published, not self-published, and not user generated comments from forums, Facebook, or Youtube. The aforementioned sources are disallowed under Misplaced Pages rules, and the Controversy section is nothing more than the editor's unsourced opinion and compilation of poor quality, user generated, accusatory/false/unsubstantiated, self-published sources. The poor quality UGC/self-published sources are by definition not allowable under Misplaced Pages rules, and no consensus on that fact should be needed. ] (]) 04:26, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
	{{ping\|Mr. Stradivarius}}

	== Protected edit request on 19 December 2014 ==

	{{edit protected\|ResellerRatings\|answered=y}}
	<!-- Begin request -->
	The long paragraph on the "ResellerRatings Merchant Member" program is written like an advertisement for the program. I modified it in my sandbox to make it more neutral (partly because the recent edit war was caused by bias), and I would like to request that the modified article in ] be merged with the actual article. Thanks.
	<!-- End request -->
	<span style="color: #3BB9FF; font-weight: 700; font-style: italic; font-family: Lato, Verdana'">HelloThereMinions</span> <sup>], ]</sup> 20:41, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
	:Please leave this request for a while to gather opinions from other editors. — Martin <small>(] · ])</small> 21:05, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

	:Hello {{ping\|HelloThereMinions}} I wasn't opposed to the edit that you had drafted in your sandbox, and didn't feel the need to comment. In addition to that proposed edit, though, you've made several additional edits, removing many important details about the resource. I'm all for improving the tone of the article and ensuring that everything is appropriately sourced, but removing the list of customers is removing factual sourced data. I'm adding back that section and welcome your feedback as to why you don't think it's relevant for the customers of the business to be listed. I've also improved the section regarding the CTR lift to include the fact that other ratings sites contribute. Thanks. ] (]) 06:40, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

	== Protected Edit Request to include factual content ==

	{{Edit protected\|answered=yes}}
	{{ESp\|hr}} ]<sup>]</sup> 10:21, 27 January 2016 (UTC)


	ResellerRatings factual content is consistently removed by an individual associated with the company, then protection requests are filed to prevent that information from appearing in the article. Any factual, well sourced, encyclopedic content added by any user which casts any type of unfavorable light on this business is consistently removed, then protection requests are filed to keep the information out of the article for 6 months. The same user, Techimo, who likely has an affiliation with the organization as the only other article he's ever contributed is the one he started about the company's founder (]), is responsible for this manipulation.

	The latest revisions were quite neutral, well sourced from peer review sites such as the ], ], and ], as well as industry news magazine, Internet Retailer Magazine, a former division of ]. These are neutral sources with no axe to grind. Criticisms were listed as well as the steps ResellerRatings took to address them. In fact, ResellerRatings itself has issued press releases to Internet Retail Magazine, thus, proving the respect ResellerRatings has for this source.<ref>https://www.internetretailer.com/2011/01/21/resellerratings-broadens-its-syndication</ref> That is about as neutral as it gets. All of ResellerRatings' peers such as TrustPilot, ], and the Better Business Bureau have similar "Criticism" sections. Why is ResellerRatings' article allowed to be any different?

	The consistent citing of "non neutral point of view" by user Techimo and his various IP's is false, disruptive, and misleading.

	I request that the article be reverted to the https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=ResellerRatings&oldid=701384529 revision, and for the protection to remain for a 6 month period, to prevent Techimo from removing factual content and abusing Misplaced Pages protection. That revision is listed below for convenience.

	In summary, I request that these sections be added to the article:

	:'''Response:''' ] is defending content contributed to the ] page by ], an edit warring IP who posted the same (or versions of) critical attacks (citing every negative, and not reliable, hearsay, blog, and user generated forum posting source he could locate) no less than 103 times in December 2014 in an eager effort to attack the ResellerRatings page with a non-NPOV agenda, which also included sources which were not reliable. This user then began another tirade of posts under the the username NotTechimo, for which he was blocked from Misplaced Pages for impersonating (me) by ]. The edit war continued from 32.211.179.232, so the ] page was protected for 6 months until August 2015 by ].

	:Now, after a round of critical, non-NPOV, and biased edits to the ResellerRatings page by the same edit warring IP 71.235.154.73 which began on January 21, 2016, within hours, ZeroShadows also contributed several edits to the ResellerRatings and Better Business Bureau pages, and he is now here asking you to allow his (or his friend's) biased agenda and attack against this page to be allowed to persist. There is documentation on the web that exists proving that 71.235.154.73 has a continuing financial interest in damaging the ResellerRatings page and an axe to grind, but in the interest of upholding Misplaced Pages's outing policy, that won't be posted here. However, ignoring that, and on the sole basis that 71.235.154.73 engaged in a 100+ edit warring attack, impersonated me by creating the NotTechimo account, and got blocked by two admins, I would respectfully request that you deny this user the ability to continue his pattern of abuse.

	:ZeroShadows is clearly 71.235.154.73. Of all the millions of users who could be editing this article, why should the Misplaced Pages community allow you to edit it? Haven't you proven that you have a vendetta against this company beyond all reasonable doubt? Why don't you disclose who you are and what your clear conflict is here in editing this page, and see what others think about it? If an admin or other doesn't care who you are or why it is that you're so determined to try to damage this company's reputation, then they can weigh in as much. But don't hide who you are and what your agenda is behind an IP address when your industry, your own company, and your dealings with this company, not to mention your edit history for this page, reveal a clear bias. Let someone else, who has nothing to gain by trying to discredit this company, like a random longstanding Misplaced Pages editor, edit this page fairly. You're not the guy.] (]) 08:42, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

	::'''Reply:''' Look, I'm not here to argue with you, although that is apparently your preferred approach to anyone else who edits this article. Citing the same "non-NPOV" argument, since you are likely affiliated with the company, is a tad hypocritical, don't you think? I can understand wanting to protect something you have an affiliation with. That's fine. However, there are other facets to the organization which are worthy of inclusion here. You can't simply call every factual event that this company has caused, which you don't want to be known, "non-NPOV". That's my problem with you and this article. Further, in that this business itself is supposedly an unbiased review site, I question why you have such a difficult time when anything even remotely critical of this organization is added to the article.

	::As for 75.whatever, I'm not that person so can you cease with the mudslinging and name calling, please? ] (]) 09:39, 27 January 2016 (UTC)


	'''REQUEST #1 TO ADD THIS SECTION'''

	==Company Rating==
	ResellerRatings currently holds a ] rating of "F" (on a scale of A+ to F),<ref>BBB Business Review: http://www.bbb.org/stlouis/business-reviews/publishers-directory-and-guide/resellerratingscom-in-saint-louis-mo-310562956</ref> a ] rating of 44% out of 100%,<ref>ResellerRatings on SiteJabber: http://www.sitejabber.com/reviews/www.resellerratings.com</ref> and a ] rating of 7.7 out of 10.<ref>ResellerRatings on Trustpilot: https://www.trustpilot.com/review/www.resellerratings.com</ref> ResellerRatings does not currently allow its service to be rated on its own website.<ref>ResellerRatings Not Listed on ResellerRatings.com: http://resellerratings.com/search/resellerratings</ref>

	'''END OF REQUEST #1'''

	:'''Response:''' Aside from this being a clear effort on your part to push your negative agenda against this company, these are user generated sources. Even the BBB rating is user generated. None of these are reliable sources. ] ] (]) 08:49, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

	::'''Reply:''' These are all perfectly reliable sources for the content. As for pushing an agenda, how is a 7.7 out of 10 me pushing a negative agenda? These are the company's ratings at these sites. I didn't make them up and these companies have no axe to grind with ResellerRatings. And, as I stated, RellerRatings does not allow itself to be rated on it's own site.

	:::These aren't reliable sources. They are users stating opinions. ] ] (]) 09:47, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

	::::I disagree. ] (]) 10:05, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

	:::::Do you disagree with Misplaced Pages's rules? From, ]. "Anyone can create a personal web page or publish their own book, and also claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason self-published media—whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, personal pages on social networking sites, Internet forum postings, or tweets—are largely not acceptable. This includes any website whose content is largely user-generated, including the Internet Movie Database (IMDB), CBDB.com, content farms, collaboratively created websites such as wikis, and so forth, with the exception of material on such sites that is labeled as originating from credentialed members of the sites' editorial staff, rather than users." ] (]) 10:08, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

	::::::No, I disagree with your interpretation of Misplaced Pages's rules. ] (]) 10:15, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

	'''REQUEST #2 TO ADD THIS SECTION'''

	==Criticism==
	On January 9, 2013, amid receiving reports from resellers of fee increases and missing consumer reviews, news outlet Internet Retailer Magazine, a former division of ], now owned by Vertical Web Media,<ref>About Internet Retailer Magazine: https://www.internetretailer.com/about/#/our-company</ref> published a report titled "Small web retailers fume at ResellerRatings’ price hikes".<ref>Internet Retailer Magazine Report on ResellerRatings Fee Increases: https://www.internetretailer.com/2013/01/09/small-web-retailers-fume-resellerratings-price-hikes?p=1</ref> In the article, merchants contend that ResellerRatings drastically increased subscription prices, while removing reviews for those opting to discontinue their subscriptions.

	Elaine Olshanetsky, head of business development at ResellerRatings, is quoted in the report as stating, "...the company’s cancellation policy is to disable any reviews that a retailer actively solicited, collected and hosted on the retailer’s web site via a pop-up box provided by ResellerRatings. E-retailers can offer that pop-up box at the end of their checkout process. But, any reviews that consumers write about that merchant without prompting—that is, a shopper goes directly to ResellerRatings.com and leaves a review without using the pop-up box—are retained on the site. That means that cancellation should not leave a retailer worse off in Google results relative to when it began using the service." Olshanetsky commented on the price increases, stating, "In certain instances, our customers remained at the legacy $29 per month rate for quite some time. Instead of raising their rates substantially, we implemented a stepwise process where we evaluated each merchant to determine an appropriate increase, and then implemented those increases over time."

	ResellerRatings is reported in the article to have discontinued this practice of removing reviews upon cancellation of merchant subscriptions.

	] (]) 07:44, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

	'''END OF REQUEST #2'''

	:'''Response:''' From ]

	{{Quote\|text='''Prefer nonjudgmental language'''. A neutral point of view neither sympathizes with nor disparages its subject (or what reliable sources say about the subject), although this must sometimes be balanced against clarity. Present opinions and conflicting findings in a disinterested tone. Do not editorialize. When editorial bias towards one particular point of view can be detected the article needs to be fixed."}}

	:In your edit, did you mention that there are thousands of merchants at ResellerRatings, and that the article you cited talked to 3, or did you use omission to spin and overstate your negative point? Does your edit sound like it was written by a disinterested party, when you used the word "drastically"? Is that word found anywhere in the article you cited? Did you include quotes about retailers who praise the site and "rave about ResellerRatings", in your edit, from the article you cited, to present a balanced view?

	{{Quote\|text=''Some retailers, such as Fat Brain Toys, a family-owned toy e-retailer with 40 employees, rave about the services of ResellerRatings. “The Merchant Member program is very turnkey and easy to launch. Provided you’re already taking care of your customers, it’s a great way to let the world know about it,” says Mark Carson, founder of Fat Brain Toys. “It’s a vote of confidence for us that Google would trust ResellerRatings as an authentic third party that can be managing the customer perception.”

	Jose Prendes, CEO of wellness and beauty products seller PureFormulas.com, which will have 2012 sales of $30 million, says ResellerRatings is the best of the four reviews services it uses—the others are BizRate, Nextag and Pricegrabber. He says this is because the ResellerRatings interface is easier to use and he receives instant e-mails every time a new review posts to his company’s profile, with the ability to respond, see the corresponding order number and flag inappropriate or false reviews.

	PureFormulas.com signed up with ResellerRatings two years ago at a rate of $249 per month and since August 2011 has been paying $499 per month, he says. Prendes thinks the rate is fair both because it is much cheaper than the other reviews services he uses and, while the price doubled, his business has also grown by 100% in the last year, he says.

	“You have to put it in context,” Prendes says. “If it’s a really small operation, it would probably affect them more and they might feel they can’t afford it. For us, it’s a great way of staying in touch with customers.”}}

	:Misplaced Pages isn't an editorial soap box. The point of citing reliable sources is to support neutral prose that "neither sympathizes with nor disparages its subject", not to cherry pick and paste quotes from articles to support a viewpoint.

	:Again, your edit history and professional/industry bias, demonstrated in your editorialized commentary, establishes that you're not the one to be editing this page. Let someone wholly unaffiliated with you come along in their own time and edit. ] (]) 08:58, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

	::'''Reply:''' You want to include other sections of the Internet Retailer Article? Knock yourself out. I'm proposing adding a Criticism section and Company Rating section. Third party glowing reviews of the business don't fit those categories. I cited the critical sections of the article, as well as ResellerRatings response to them. That's fair, and follows in the vein of similar "Criticism" sections for the BBB, Trustpilot, Angie's List, etc. As for the word "drastically", I used it instead of "mammoth" which is used in the article. Would you prefer "mammoth" instead to describe the fee increases?

	::: You're not describing the article in a neutral way. Your tone is not encyclopedic and disinterested. You're editorializing, using inflammatory language and an inflammatory cherry picked quote to present one side. Yes, that article exists. Big deal. A google search turns it up. Why you feel like it's an important aspect of this site's what, 15+ year history, is beyond me, but mentioning it '''in a neutral, encyclopedic manner''' would be to say "some site wrote this thing about 3 merchants complaining about price hikes and 3 more merchants saying how great the site is." That would be balanced, and what it adds to this article amounts to very little. A blip in the site's history from 3 out of many thousands of merchants who didn't like the site, in an article that cites many other merchants who do like the site? Wouldn't it be much more accurate to say "Praise & Criticism, courtesy internet retailer: the story of how 3 merchants didn't like some price changes, how 3 others love the site, and how many thousands more clearly use the site." ] (]) 09:56, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

	:::: You apparently have difficulty understanding the word criticism. I quoted critical sections of the article and the company's response to them. And, please, don't add marketing nonsense here. It's out of place. If want to claim 1000's of satisfied and only 3 dissatisfied, you're being unfair and you know it. The site has many, many criticisms by merchants all over the web, however, those are not reputable sources for Misplaced Pages inclusion, just as your above statements aren't. <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 10:22, 27 January 2016 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

	::Lastly, please get off your angry high horse, spouting that I have no right to contribute to this article, while you, who are almost definitely affiliated with the business, are obviously not neutral, and have a conflict of interest, are. As for letting someone else come along and edit the article, it's impossible. You don't allow it. The article's history is replete with you removing anything anyone has ever added that you don't like. It's time for that to change and for the article to be more of an article than a company press release. ] (]) 09:39, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

	:::I'm not affiliated with the business. Many edits were made to this page, some negative, some positive, some pointless, over the years that I had no part in. What I don't like is your bias against this business for its effect that it has had (in your opinion) on you personally, the non neutral point of view comments that seek to bash the site, and the tone that is definitely not disinterested. ] (]) 09:56, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

	::::You're not affiliated? You started the article on the company's founder. I doubt the integrity of that statement. As I stated, I'm proposing a "Criticism" section, similar to sections in articles on companies like ResellerRatings. The content must fit the topic. If you have no affiliation, why are you so opposed to including a section that a plethora of Misplaced Pages articles contain? Why does everything in this article have to be 100% positive? That makes no sense if you are supposedly unaffiliated with the business. Those sections are okay for every other article in Misplaced Pages except this one? ] (]) 10:12, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

	:::::Nope. And "similar to" doesn't cut it. You don't get to write a negative spin editorial and get a free pass because some other articles happen to contain the same section heading. And what you proposed adding would definitely not be ok for "every other article." This discussion isn't productive. You've said your piece and I've said mine. The admins can do as they will. ] (]) 10:21, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

	:::::By the way, check your facts. This article was originally contributed to Misplaced Pages in 2007 by user Koweja.] (]) 10:26, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

	::::::Again, I doubt the integrity of your non-affiliation statement. As for what I'm proposing being unfit for inclusion, that's your opinion, sir. Obviously we will not reach agreement here. My proposed changes need to be reviewed by an impartial third party. As for my statement about you starting this article, redacted. The statement about you starting the article on ], company founder, stands. ] (]) 10:29, 27 January 2016 (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:

Websites: Computing Low‑importance

	This 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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Computing.

Companies Low‑importance

This 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

Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Companies To-do:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : Misplaced Pages:Requested articles/Business and economics/Companies
Assess : Category:Unassessed company articles
Copyedit : Category:Company articles needing attention
Infobox : Category:Company articles needing infoboxes
Maintain : Portal:Companies
Stubs : Help expand stub articles located at Category:Company stubs
Other :
- Tag company articles with the {{portal|Companies}} template
- Tag company talk pages with the {{WikiProject Companies}} project banner
- Answer requests for comments

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: