Talk:Yelp/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Extended content

Reviewer: Erachima (talk · contribs) 00:02, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for picking up the review user:Erachima! I will get started on these this weekend at the latest. CorporateM (Talk) 11:49, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Erachima I'm done with an initial run-through. Just as an FYI, I am not necessarily responsible for every piece of content in the article, as you'll see from some of my responses (in a couple places you said "you" did this or that, whereas I didn't do it - I'm innocent! ;-) In a couple places I'll have to wait to see if Kbob has a strong opinion that may prevent me from implementing your feedback. As you may have seen in the note in the nomination, I have a COI, so if he opposes edits, those edits become "controversial" and I cannot make them per WP:COI, which may prevent me from being able to hit the GA mark. CorporateM (Talk) 12:57, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Organizational issues

Lead section is on the short and choppy side.

I think it could use a re-write. Currently it does not define the subject and it probably doesn't need to list individual countries they expanded to. It's one-sided in that it mentions criticisms of Yelp's review filtering and not the astroturfing problem. I didn't think it was too short necessarily. I'll ping user:Keithbob again here, as he was the most vocal about the Lead in prior discussion (other than Candle who is now banned) and I think (but am not sure) is the one that wrote the bulk of it. CorporateM (Talk) 12:49, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Early History"/"Market Expansion"/"Recent History" leaves much to be desired as an organizational scheme for the history section. "Market Expansion" immediately follows a paragraph about expansion, and "Recent History" is ambiguous and dates very quickly. Possible alternatives would to divide it along Origins/Private/Public, or even simply by decade, as 2000s/2010s.

Done CorporateM (Talk) 12:09, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This being an article whose subject is Yelp the company rather than Yelp.com the webpage, section header "Features" should be changed or clarified somehow. eBay, for comparison, uses "ebay.com" for that header, though due to the emphasis on mobile/app use here that might not parallel perfectly.

How about "Software and website"? CorporateM (Talk) 12:03, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Operation Clean Turf is a red link, so it's probably better incorporated into the subsection on astroturfing rather than treated as a major milestone in corporate history. (By contrast to treatment on Samsung Electronics of bluelinked Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd..)

Done CorporateM (Talk) 12:11, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"According to BusinessWeek, Yelp has "always had a complicated relationship with small businesses."[62]" appears to be the obvious sentence to lead the section "Relationship with businesses."

Done CorporateM (Talk) 12:02, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Scope

What is a "local Yelp page"?

I'm a little confused by this myself. Every major city covered has its own separate mini-site with its own community that has its own "Review of the Day", Recent Activity feed, etc. I'll find a less confusing way to word it. CorporateM (Talk) 12:16, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done Actually checking the source, it does not explicitly mention pages, just says Yelp is established in those cities. I have corrected it. CorporateM (Talk) 12:42, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"In July 2012, a court held Yelp in contempt." Which court would that be?

Done CorporateM (Talk) 12:22, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing

Which is the source backing "This is due to the significant increase of paid advertised results when a user searches a particular keyword."?
Likewise for "This is similar to the strategy that Google uses with its multi-billion dollar Adwords campaign."
Same paragraph, "(in traffic presumably)" is an editorializing quote from the associated link. Which means either putting that in quotes and incorporating into the text that it's the opinion of that writer, or just leaving it as Stoppelman's original unclarified "uptick."

This entire paragraph regarding the three bullets above was just recently added by an IP. I suggest we trim it down to just the first sentence. CorporateM (Talk) 12:24, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dead link at [1]. You should archive what you can, source-wise. See also first bullet in Neutrality, which was the portion of the article this supported.

Done I fixed the link; apparently they tried to change the title of the article to "Yelps Jeremy Stoppelman Will Do it His Way". They changed the URL to that title and the title in search results, but the actual article still has the old title on it, so I left the source title as-is. CorporateM (Talk) 12:31, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality

You've got Wikipedia editorializing again with "– like some other technology start-ups –", so that needs to be fixed. May be the same issue as the earlier problem with "(in traffic presumably)" but I can't tell thanks to the link being dead.

Done Looks like an obvious trim. Not sure if I actually wrote that or not. CorporateM (Talk) 12:37, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The "online urban guide" thing in the topic sentence is weird. Would suggest some construction along the lines of "that operates a business review site, which describes itself as an 'online urban guide.'" Saying what people call themselves is fine, but what they're called in English generally comes first.

Argh. I know. That's the work of user:Keithbob. He seems to be pretty attached to it. CorporateM (Talk) 12:37, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Grammar

"where anyone can submit a review on them." has an antecedent problem.

Done CorporateM (Talk) 12:39, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"The plaintiff's filed an appeal."

Done CorporateM (Talk) 12:38, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Images and stability are non-issues. I'm placing the page On Hold. --erachima talk 00:02, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

comments from Protonk

At the request of the nominator I've taken over this review. My comments are below. I think that the bulk of this article is good to go. It's largely well sourced and clear and some good work has been done to clear up the first reviewers comments. I have two outstanding problems; one large and one small. My small problem is with the lede. I feel that it can be tightened up a bit and could better reflect the content of the article. My major problem is with the structure and tone of the Relationships with businesses section. The section has a very tough job. It has to accurately and fairly reflect the available sourcing on Yelp's admittedly patchy relationship with their main customer base. This is complicated by our merging of Yelp the business entity with Yelp the body of crowdsourced reviews, so we have sections which go from discussing business relationships to reviewers to the site and back again. There are also some problematic passages where we appear to be off-loading responsibilities for certain claims (often those critical of Yelp) where it isn't needed and or alternating between good press and bad where it would make more sense to the reader to organize things logically. I don't mean to pose the above as withering criticism of the article or the motivations of editors. On the contrary, it is very difficult to produce a well organized, clear and neutral summary of a subject like this so we should expect these problems at the GA level.

I think the best way forward is to deal with the smaller problems first and try to collect the larger problems and write proposed drafts for the individual sections which tackle multiple issues at once, because working on many of the tone issues piecemeal may introduce clarity problems and vice versa.

Thanks! I'll start working down the list, leaving anything controversial to Request Edits. CorporateM (Talk) 13:53, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@user:Protonk I've done the ones that are fairly non-controversial. I'd like to wait a week or so to see if user:Coretheapple has time to take a look at some of the more controversial or substantial items. If not, I'll do them through Request Edits. CorporateM (Talk) 15:40, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I've been super busy! Sometimes I get contacted by folks that are not notable or have negative reputations in the source material and it's very time-consuming to talk them off the cliff. I'll take a crack at the last remaining item now and see if I can avoid making a jerk out of myself. user:Coretheapple did say they were busy IRL. CorporateM (Talk) 22:13, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- @CorporateM: Take your time. :) I'm happy to keep this review on hold as long as you need to work on it to your satisfaction. Protonk (talk) 22:19, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

style/layout

completed

I'd link to Rating scale somewhere in the article if we don't already. It's not a great article but I like building the web.

Done CorporateM (Talk) 13:54, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

content

complete

It's a common house style to have the first paragraph of the lede be a mini-lede, but I think we can integrate it a bit here. We note that Yelp develops and markets "a set of software" and then note that they mostly develop Yelp.com and the mobile app. Let's just say that.

Done CorporateM (Talk) 13:57, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

When we say "Yelp also trains small businesses to respond to reviews responsibly; hosts social events for reviewers; and provides basic data about businesses, such as hours of operation." we're referring to two things the company does for businesses and one that the website provides. I know we're trying to be careful about what's crowdsourced and what isn't, but I think in the lede we can be more clear.
- Actually, looking at the body more closely it appears that the hours of operations are updated by yelp. Protonk (talk) 13:54, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done

"From 2010 to 2012, Yelp..." I don't think this sentence is important enough to be in the lede.

Done Although I'm not sure I agree, it's difficult to make a "complete" summary of the site's features that is also a short summary. CorporateM (Talk) 14:04, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"The company's revenues come from businesses being reviewed on the site choosing to advertise." Is there a reason we don't just say "their revenue is derived primarily from advertising"?

I think it is important to draw this distinction (especially in the context of the "Relationship" section) that the advertising isn't say, banner ads for dog food and toilet paper, but are ads purchased by the same local small businesses being reviewed. CorporateM (Talk) 14:08, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Consider this

Done for the purposes of this review but I would welcome a pithier summary (while still being accurate) for the lede. Protonk (talk) 15:23, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Yelp has had a difficult relationship with business owners reviewed on the site, who often feel their reviews are unfair, fraudulently write reviews on their own business, or accuse Yelp of manipulating reviews." I want to take a close look at this sentence later.
- To clarify, this comment is here because we may be able to re-write it more clearly when the relationships section is refactored (and it might help to have the nominator or anyone else look at it closely). Protonk (talk) 02:15, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"The Register described it as an online city guide." Not sure why this is important. It's maybe an interesting figurative way to look at yelp but it isn't expanded upon here.

Not done I totally agree with you, but another editor felt the "city guide" language was important and was quite attached to it. "Controversial edit" and all that with WP:COI. Keeps me out of trouble, but sometimes prevents me from making improvements. Can you take it out if you deem appropriate? CorporateM (Talk) 14:12, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done I agree that this sentence is really not necessary. It's a somewhat obvious statement, and I think it's redundant. Also The Register, while notable, is a somewhat marginal online publication and not of the clout of a New York Times or Time Magazine so this doesn't really add very much. However, if other editors feel strongly about it and want to revert, I certainly won't object. Coretheapple (talk) 15:13, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"website users can submit a review on their products or services. It uses a one to five star rating system." how about "their products or services using a one to five star rating system."

Done CorporateM (Talk) 14:13, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Yelp is primarily active in major metropolitan regions." this sentence should be higher in the paragraph. Maybe along with the following two sentences.

Done CorporateM (Talk) 14:15, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"As of 2012, 45 percent of Yelp searches are done from a mobile device." I'm not sure how this paragraph is supposed to be structured. A lot of the material is dated, most notionally ordered chronologically, but there are enough things out of order to make me wonder if that's the case. What are we trying to acomplish here?

I broke it up into two paragraphs. One is on mobile and the other is on more recent features. I think that might make it much clearer now that each paragraph has a distinct topic. CorporateM (Talk) 14:28, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"According to Inc. Magazine, a sponsored "favorite review" can make a..." Two things about this paragraph. One, the first sentence is framed in the present tense but we're describing a feature of the site which no longer exists. Two, attributing this claim to Inc. Magazine in text is misleading. We note in the encyclopedia's voice that they stopped the practice but the claim that they had the practice in the first place is "According to".

I think the Inc. Magazine attribution is intended for the latter half of the sentence "can make a businesses' ratings seem more positive, by placing a positive review above the negative ones." It does feel like it needs some re-writing. CorporateM (Talk) 14:31, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"According to BusinessWeek, Yelp has "always had a complicated relationship with small businesses." " In the lede we note (without quotes) that Yelp has a difficult relationship but here we quote a specific souce to make what is arguably a less controversial claim (that the relationship is complicated)

I changed that to "conflicts with" as it says the same thing but is a bit less conclusory, and definitely substantiated by the text. Coretheapple (talk) 21:37, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Further, the paragraph which follows seems to be oddly structured. We start by saying they have a difficult relationship and then proceed to note two studies which measure the marginal value of a Yelp review. I think we're trying to establish that reviews on yelp are important/meaningful to business owners so we have some context for the following sentences on reactions to negative reviews. But it's not clear.

I changed the order of the paragraphs and broke out the text re conflicts with business, as I think that clarifies things a tad and possibly also resolves this issue. Do you think so? Coretheapple (talk) 21:40, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Small business caught writing their own..." just "businesses" (also it's not business)

Done CorporateM (Talk) 14:22, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"The Los Angeles Times confirmed that the aggressive filter sometimes..." No need for the word "aggressive" here. A critical reader might think that we're carrying over the good will from the NYAG's comment to downplay the filter scrubbing legitimate reviews rather than providing an explanatory note as to why the filter may do that. also the phrasing this as "the times confirmed" is a bit odd. If we read through the CNN source we'll see one of their sources note that the filter catches legitimate reviews, so following that LAT confirmation makes sense, but we don't have that in the article. That and I'm not sure that article qualifies as "the LA Times confirmed". I was expecting a piece of hard reporting, not some stuff about yarn stores.

I changed "confirmed" to "reported" and took out "aggressive." Coretheapple (talk) 21:46, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"...in order to give them a voice against reviews they feel are unfair." This clause is probably unecessry. The clause borrows phrasing from the source but not the meaning. The original sentence is "Responding to criticism from business owners that some user reviews are unfair, Yelp also recently introduced a way for the business owner to send a message back to a reviewer." I think we're trying to avoid close paraphrasing by reversing the order but we may be better served by just noting the change (seeing as we clarify what was added in the following sentence).

Done CorporateM (Talk) 13:20, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"While many internet businesses look at Yelp's system against astroturfing as an example to follow." the closest phrase I can find in the cited source is "Some in the industry feel that Yelp has done its policing right." which is an intro to a paragraph that cites one business owner.

I remember reading it somewhere RE "example to follow" but I don't see it in the source and can't find other sources in Google searches. What about something like "Many internet businesses support Yelp's efforts to combat astroturfing". More directly supported by the source CorporateM (Talk) 13:38, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"A 2011 Harvard study by Michael Luca..." I do want to see the Luca study cited here. If it is this one I think we have a larger problem, as that paper doesn't mention Yelp advertising at all (Boo WSJ). the paper shows that there is no evidence of the effectiveness of gaming but does not discuss advertising.
- I've dug around for Luca's other Yelp papers (one in 2012 and one in 2013) and I can't get full text for either but it's unlikely WSJ is making that comment based on the other two papers as they don't deal with advertising either. It's possible that the 2012 paper (nber link) has some negative results in the appendix about advertising but given the various sources I've read on the paper I think it's unlikely. Protonk (talk) 22:21, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've asked my contact at Yelp if they know where it can be obtained. I think they sent me a copy a long time ago. Though, I don't think it is actually necessary, as the secondary sources are vast and reliable and supplementing with a primary source would just be a bonus. CorporateM (Talk) 13:42, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not super comfortable leaving in a claim that "harvard study says X" if I can't convince myself the study actually said that. It's possible Luca told the WSJ he didn't find any relationship and chose to leave that negative result out of the paper, but there are other negative results in that paper with supporting methodology and noting that advertisement doesn't impact customer ratings is a big enough negative result that were it something which came out of the study it'd be in there. Protonk (talk) 14:48, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Yelp PR contact said it was here in section 3.4. I haven't verified personally yet, but will take a look later today. CorporateM (Talk) 15:36, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. That's a later version of the paper (looks like they're revising for one of the AEA subject specific journals). Looks good. In that case I think adding the specific citation (alongside the WSJ one) will resolve this issue. Protonk (talk) 15:53, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done CorporateM (Talk) 16:06, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I personally think the community section is overlong and filled with trivial details but I'm not going to hold up the article on that.
I will note a few problems:
- "They are seen as cultish and influential." I don't think this is really necessary
- "...writing a review is sometimes referred to as "Yelping" somebody." also probably not necessary

So there's some information here that may only include one citation, but I only added it after seeing similar material in a lot of sources. Something along the lines of "cultish and influential" is repeated in quite a few sources, but I have my doubts whether it is true or merely routine media editorialism. It is a soft topic having to do with culture that is not easily described in hard facts, but I think some trimming/copyediting is in order. CorporateM (Talk) 13:51, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Copyediting may resolve it. You can leave this out of the collapsed bit for now, but as far as the review is concerned raising the issue is enough for me to say it's

Done. Protonk (talk) 14:49, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Protonk (talk) 01:33, 26 September 2014 (UTC) Here's what I suggest for the community section:[reply]

I did some re-organizing as well as some copyediting of the Community section. The very last paragraph is stuff I would trim, but I'll either use a Request Edit or see if you or Coretheapple trims it (or keep it if you so choose). CorporateM (Talk) 05:42, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
" Businesses can also update contact information, hours and other basic listing information or add special deals." I think this belongs in a different section ~~or potentially nowhere in the article.~~
- On reflection it's probably fine in the article but it's the sort of thing that belongs in a general description of the service not amidst the relationships to businesses section. Protonk (talk) 21:55, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't sure of the best place to put the features that allow business owners to interact with Yelp (under "Relationships" or "Features"). I think under the current article-structure, this sentence is in the right place. If we wanted to move it, the best thing to do would be to move that entire section to the Features section, which is probably a bit short right now because of this topic being split off. user: Crisco 1492 seemed to support the current structure and while I am not sure myself, I find myself trusting whatever he/she suggests. CorporateM (Talk) 13:03, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The interactions section may be okay as a paragraph of #Features, but I was initially concerned that including it in a section titled "Features" might be considered POV. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:54, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Protonk Would you like to do the honors of sort of making an "executive decision." I know we prefer words like "consensus" around here, but it seems like a bit of a tossup. CorporateM (Talk) 05:28, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is

Done via requested edit. I'm sympathetic to Crisco 1492's concern here, as the word "features" sucks for articles like this. Showing business hours is a literal feature of the yelp service but it's common to see the word "feature" deployed with some positive valence. I don't have a better word (e.g. "services" or the like), so there we are. Protonk (talk) 15:26, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Coverage of the recent court case (see here for one example) should be included in the article. I think there's enough for a short paragraph (especially if we restructure the section a bit)

I think if it was a separate article, we could write a paragraph, but just a sentence would be ok here. I did notice this when I added the other recent law making it illegal to fine customers that write negative Yelp reviews, but it seems to have slipped through the cracks. This is a Request Edit-type item. I'll lump it with any others or see if Core authors it. CorporateM (Talk) 13:45, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done CorporateM (Talk) 17:01, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think the second half of this paragraph could be improved by some re-structuring. Try something like this: Yelp has a system for filtering out suspicious reviews. This system is proprietary and the methods are not disclosed to users (which is not uncommon). The nature of the filter has caused complaints and confusion. However, the fitlering system serves as an "aggressive" check against astroturfed reviews.

Can you specify which paragraph this is referring to? I think it may have gotten lost in the shuffling of completed items to the archive. CorporateM (Talk) 17:01, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's the paragraph starting with "Yelp may remove reviews it feels are not based on actual personal experiences..." Protonk (talk) 19:11, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done How's that? CorporateM (Talk) 19:59, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Looks better, thanks. Protonk (talk) 20:07, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The structure of the Relationship with businesses section makes me think that the first few paragraphs will roughly summarize the interactions Yelp has had with businesses with subsidiary sections on astroturfing, "interactions", manipulation, but I'm not seeing that here. I don't think it needs to be that way for a GA, but I'm not sure this section is as clear as it could be.

I'll leave this to user:Coretheapple if he/she has time. I find myself having increasingly strong opinions on the subjects. If I had my way, I think I would create a separate article similar to Reliability of Wikipedia, like Integrity of Yelp Reviews and use summary style. This section spans more than one-third of the entire article, and should be expanded even more. A lot of reliable sources about individual incidences were removed about a year ago because they are undue weight for this page, but would be perfect for an "Incidences" section on a separate article like the one found on Reliability of Wikipedia. CorporateM (Talk) 13:17, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We may have taxed enough of their time (thanks for all their help!). I think we can find a path which satisfies your opinions but doesn't force us (yet) to create a new article. Converting the first paragraph to a rough summary of the interactions will help us make the following subsections shorter and more direct. When the time comes to create an "Integrity of Yelp reviews" (or whatever) article, the subsections can be removed and the summary left there with a hatnote to the new article. No fuss no muss. I know this is a tough situation for you but I think it should be resolved because it'll make the article more clear and allow for easier piecemeal editing of the individual sections. If you want to wait for Coretheapple we can; I'm happy to keep the review on hold as long as you need to. But I think this can be handled via a requested edit (or a series of them).

For specific recommendations on what I'd like to see in that paragraph I'd say:

Take out the court case
Take out (for now) the distribution of reviews (it's better suited in the "interactions" section as context for the owners reacting to "bad" reviews)
Clarify why we're including the information on the marginal value of a Yelp star. It's useful information but it's sort of dead weight in the paragraph unless we show why the reader should care.
Move up some material from the first paragraph in the astroturfing section to the section summary

If you're looking to shorten the section as a whole I'd question the need to have the bit about yelp and "a lawyer" getting into a tiff. Protonk (talk) 19:30, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I would agree with most of those specifically as the class action lawsuit with the vet (if that's the one you are referring to) is unquestionably notable. It could be moved up into the currently sterile corporate history section, where lawsuits typically reside, so this section could focus on the broader issues. I think either location would be equally valid. The analysis of stars and their impact is also unquestionably notable, but the dispute with the lawyer may not be. I'll have to double check.

I support sub-articles more than is currently community consensus (though I think user:Wikidemon also mentioned a similar sub-article previously). For logistical reasons, it is most practical for a disinterested editor to give it a read through and do some re-structuring, trimming, and re-organizing (it is very hard for an editor to actually look at a proposed re-structure and know exactly what has changed), but I'll proceed with it that way if we don't hear back from Core. CorporateM (Talk) 20:13, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's the one supported by this source (text is "In 2013 Yelp and a law firm were involved in a dispute over their agreement for advertising services." etc.). For the GA review it's fine, just didn't think it was that necessary in a section if you're strapped for space as it were. Protonk (talk) 20:18, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also I see you've had some editors complain about using drafts for requested edits. I have no problem with that form if that's how you're comfortable proposing a reorganization like this. I kinda wish wikipedia allowed forks (technically) so we could diff unrelated pages, not just changes but if you want to paste the relationship section into a draft and reorganize it there I can review that pretty easily. Protonk (talk) 20:21, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Doing more research, I don't think the dispute with the lawyer could be removed either, considering the sources available[2][3][4][5][6][7] On the contrary, just this one lawsuit (tiny in the scope of things) could warrant an entire section on a sub-page. Being that we are not a paper encyclopedia, we are never really pressed for space, just for due weight.

I usually tell clients that if they are not uncomfortable, they are not doing it properly. It comes with the territory. I find myself having reasonable and balanced viewpoints about the fairness of reviews, the filter, etc. but I don't think the accusations of actual manipulation are credible; rather like a pseudoscience it has been established by experts, academics, courts and whatnot to be false, but it is still a popularly believed point-of-view by businesses frustrated by their reviews and consumers that are easily influenced by the sensational press. That opinion, however reasonable it may or may not be, will get me into COI trouble when it reflects in the content I write (as it probably already does).

Anyways, lets wait a bit longer to see if Core wants to take a stab and if not I'll take a shot with a Request Edit type thing. CorporateM (Talk) 20:45, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Take at re-structuring controversy

How's this? CorporateM (Talk) 22:46, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just made a few more tweaks. I should note, in order to avoid the appearance of trying to sneak something by, that this is along the lines of the structure I proposed one year ago, which did not obtain consensus. Not trying to wear down editors through attrition to get my way - it's just... that's how I'd do it... CorporateM (Talk) 22:58, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a close look at it within the next 2 days. Protonk (talk) 23:01, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Some thoughts: I like breaking out the "impact of reviews". I like the astroturfing section, with one suggestion that we take out the "according to the LA Times" in the first sentence. I'll have to take a closer look at alleged manipulation by yelp. I'll try and have more complete comments by thursday. Protonk (talk) 02:43, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]