Misplaced Pages

Talk:ResellerRatings

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.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Techimo (talk | contribs) at 06:38, 19 December 2014 (Clarity added on blocked user.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 06:38, 19 December 2014 by Techimo (talk | contribs) (Clarity added on blocked user.)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
WikiProject iconWebsites: Computing Start‑class 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
StartThis article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Computing.
WikiProject iconCompanies Start‑class 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
StartThis article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
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)

Disarming the ongoing edit war

(For clarity, User:NotTechimo = User:71.235.154.73, an edit warring online retailer who was blocked at 04:16, 19 December 2014 (UTC) by User: Mr. Stradivarius for impersonating user User:Techimo.)

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. 72.185.28.160 (talk) 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. 71.235.154.73 (talk) 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. 72.185.28.160 (talk) 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.71.235.154.73 (talk) 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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Techimo (talk • contribs) 21:16, 17 December 2014 (UTC)


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.NotTechimo (talk) 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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Techimo (talk • contribs) 03:10, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages: Questionable Sources Techimo (talk) 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. Techimo (talk) 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. NotTechimo (talk) 14:50, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 18 December 2014

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your 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 self published content, and are poor quality.

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. Perhaps one sentence added to the History section regarding the Internet Retailer article source may be appropriate, instead. Techimo (talk) 04:56, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

NPOV issue

"large membership fee" text is opinion/subjective and not NPOV. Techimo (talk) 22:10, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

No Concensus

I do not agree with the requested changes. The "Controversy" section is fully applicable and neutral. They are simple facts. In reviewing the history of this article, it is blatantly apparent that Techimo(talk) either works for ResellerRatings, or has worked for it, or works for a reputation management firm. Anything that has ever been written in this article that criticizes this company's model or ethics has been immediately removed by this user. This has gone on for years. Further, the only other article ever contributed by this user is about the former owner of ResellerRatings, Scott Wainner.

The controversy section is fully applicable as the statements are factual. The business does not allow non-paying merchants to comment on, reply, or flag reviews and the business has increased its fees dramatically for many merchants (hence the term "large membership fee increases"). That point is cited on a reputable third party, neutral website:

There are both good and bad facets to this company that deserve space here, but I contest having this article read only like a company press release. NotTechimo (talk) 02:09, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Not done: @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 consensus; protected edit requests should only be made for edits that already have consensus. — Mr. Stradivarius 03:39, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
Hi @Mr. Stradivarius: . Regarding the protected edit request for ResellerRatings, 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 (he is an online retailer). 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.
Techimo (talk) 04:10, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
@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 User:NotTechimo, as the account was obviously not created in good faith. — Mr. Stradivarius 04:30, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
@Mr. Stradivarius: Thank you! Techimo (talk) 04:37, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Conflict of Interest, ShopBLT.com

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. In addition, based upon public IP data from his postings, the opposing editor at issue here ("@NotTechimo:") owns Bottom Line Telecommunications aka ShopBLT.com, an online retailer whose reviews page at ResellerRatings ranks #2 in Google searches for his domain showing 3/5 stars, and whose business has apparently been reviewed on that site for 12 years based upon the oldest posted review from 2002. All of his edits here have been made on the basis that he stands to benefit by attempting to discredit the valid customer ratings and reviews about his business that appear on the ResellerRatings site. Techimo (talk) 04:26, 19 December 2014 (UTC) @Mr. Stradivarius:

Categories: