This is an old revision of this page, as edited by ZeroShadows (talk | contribs) at 07:50, 27 January 2016 (→Company Rating). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 07:50, 27 January 2016 by ZeroShadows (talk | contribs) (→Company Rating)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff).svg){kind=icon} | Websites: Computing Start‑class Low‑importance | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
 | Companies Start‑class Low‑importance | ||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||
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
Note: For clarity in the somewhat confusing discussion below, "NotTechimo" was blocked from Misplaced Pages indefinitely by Mr Stradivarius 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 MusikAnimal at 11:44, 25 December 2014 (UTC). Disruptive edits of this talk page continued from another IP, so the page was protected by CambridgeBayWeather at 02:51, 26 December 2014 (UTC). Techimo (talk) 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. 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. 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 "..." 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 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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Techimo (talk • contribs) 21:16, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
- 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.NotTechimo (talk) 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.— 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)
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. 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)
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. 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)
- @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)
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. Techimo (talk) 04:26, 19 December 2014 (UTC) @Mr. Stradivarius:
Protected edit request on 19 December 2014
| This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your 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 my sandbox be merged with the actual article. Thanks. HelloThereMinions 20:41, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
- Please leave this request for a while to gather opinions from other editors. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:05, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
- Hello @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. Techimo (talk) 06:40, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
Protected Edit Request to include factual content
 | It is requested that an edit be made to the semi-protected article at ResellerRatings. (edit · history · last · links · protection log)
This template must be followed by a complete and specific description of the request, that is, specify what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it. "Please change X" is not acceptable and will be rejected; the request must be of the form "please change X to Y".
The edit may be made by any autoconfirmed user. Remember to change the |
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 (Scott Wainner), is responsible for this manipulation.
The latest revisions were quite neutral, well sourced from peer review sites such as the Better Business Bureau, SiteJabber, and Truspilot, as well as industry news magazine, Internet Retailer Magazine, a former division of Thomson Reuters. These are neutral sources with no axe to grind. Criticisms were listed as well as the steps ResellerRatings took to address them. That is about as neutral as it gets. All of ResellerRatings' peers such as TrustPilot, Angie's List, 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:
Company Rating
ResellerRatings currently holds a Better Business Bureau rating of "F" (on a scale of A+ to F), a SiteJabber rating of 44% out of 100%, and a Trustpilot rating of 7.7 out of 10. ResellerRatings does not currently allow its service to be rated on its own website.
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 Thomson Reuters, now owned by Vertical Web Media, published a report titled "Small web retailers fume at ResellerRatings’ price hikes". 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.
ZeroShadows (talk) 07:44, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
- BBB Business Review: http://www.bbb.org/stlouis/business-reviews/publishers-directory-and-guide/resellerratingscom-in-saint-louis-mo-310562956
- ResellerRatings on SiteJabber: http://www.sitejabber.com/reviews/www.resellerratings.com
- ResellerRatings on Trustpilot: https://www.trustpilot.com/review/www.resellerratings.com
- ResellerRatings Not Listed on ResellerRatings.com: http://resellerratings.com/search/resellerratings
- About Internet Retailer Magazine: https://www.internetretailer.com/about/#/our-company
- Internet Retailer Magazine Report on ResellerRatings Fee Increases: https://www.internetretailer.com/2013/01/09/small-web-retailers-fume-resellerratings-price-hikes?p=1
- Start-Class Websites articles
- Low-importance Websites articles
- Start-Class Websites articles of Low-importance
- Start-Class Computing articles
- Unknown-importance Computing articles
- All Computing articles
- All Websites articles
- Start-Class company articles
- Low-importance company articles
- WikiProject Companies articles
- Misplaced Pages semi-protected edit requests
- Misplaced Pages edit requests possibly using incorrect templates