This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Added a link to the Loyalty Association, the cashback industry association in Britain, 16/05/08. Phreak79 ( talk) 11:13, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
I changed some of the example cashback sites listed so that only the most popular are there. To stop it being local to the UK I added some US sites I found here but I have no idea how popular the US sites listed are. Needs more international users to expand it with their knowledge. Identz 10:00, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Can I add to this? I think that the sites listed are not nessecarily the most popular in the UK. There are many that deserve a place in that list, similarly, there are some on that list that don't deserve to be there. I know of quite a few (having been cashbacking for years in the UK and saved thousands, and I know of many in australia and the states. there is also something lacking on the subject, notably the opportunities these sites offer members to earn extra cash for free. many run daily programs that over time can earn members a small fortune. i think that is worth addition. I could also add well to the affiliate programs list, as i think its alittle unfair to only include tradedoubler. its not as if they are the only one. In a short search, i have found about 10 UK programs and a similar number of US programs that are worthy of noting. I don't want to tread on anyones toes and jump into editing this page, but I'd be happy to help clean it up if there are no objections.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.56.66.167 ( talk • contribs) 17:24, Feb 23, 2007 (UTC)
A table has been added comparing the rates of some Cashback Websites. The has been moved from
Reward website page and I agree it is more appropriate on this page, but I don't like a chart that could change all the time (is anyone going to be updating it as these rates change frequently?)
More importantly, I was tying to make sure only the most popular UK cashback sites were included in the article (Greasypalm, Quidco, Rpoints, MutualPoints, and eDealsUK) based on
this chart to stop the whole thing being overun by spam from the 60+ sites. The table introduces Topcashback which is lower down.
I regularly have to remove a bit spam from one of the smaller sites from the article and it's hard to justify what should be included and what not.
Anyone have any thoughts on this?
Identz
23:03, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
I see this has been suggested. I really disagree. The current first paragraph of the Reward website defines them as
This seems a good description which means the definition includes many different types of sites that reward you for doing an action: paid-to-click, paid-to-view, paid-to-read, survey sites etc, etc.
But Cashback site are very different and I don't see how they even can be put in the same category. A person may have decided that they want to buy a new TV from a retailer. Before they make their purchase they decide to check a Cashback site to see if their is a discount available and might click through a link that gets them 5% of their money back. This is a very different action (and may be done by a very different type of person) than going to a Survey site and getting a few pence back for doing a survey. The latter is getting paid for doing a task while the former is a cashback closer to what you'd get by using a supermarket loyalty card for doing something you were going to do anyway.
Cashback websites often give users the ability to earn extra money by doing some repetitive task ('Daily Clicks' or 'Recurring Earners') but this is only an extra thing to bring in customers and not their main purpose. For this reason I think they deserve a small mention on the Reward website page but that doesn't make them a Reward Website since it is only a small part of their business (and many don't give Daily Clicks anyway).
While I agree that the content of both pages is similar right now, the Reward Website page may (and probably will) have more details added about all the paid-to-read-email sites and paid-to-click sites that Cashback Websites have absolutely nothing in common with
Identz
22:30, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Should this article be moved to 'cashback website' (singular)? Drum guy 18:53, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm a graduate student studying online marketing and am doing a rather large presentation on Cash Back/Rewards websites. As the poster above suggested, it might prove somewhat beneficial to add actual companies to this description. Ideally, I try to avoid any forms of advertisement suggestions on Wikipedia, but many people I've discussed "cash back sites" struggle to understand them until they visit the actual websites.
Below is a list of sites I am including in my presentation and have been working with my Professor with. I've also included a brief description of the relevancy of each (all the companies were chosen for providing a slightly different service).
<redacted--See below> Anyways, I'd appreciate feedback. I always like examples included in descriptions because it provides a greater context for a reader.
I feel a little bit uncomfortable about there solely being link on this article to Martin Lewis's website. That website is a layman's financial advice for profit entity. It does display bias in its review of financial services and products. I understand so do newspapers and we list those, however it's more the fact it's one link on its own that disturbs me a little.
Martin has preference over which cashback website is used. This is not a preference based on sound reasoning, as you can see when you review the said article article. Martin is known to have a historical relationship of promoting rpoints. The recommendation of rpoints is based on poor reasoning, and displays a bias. I think this is advertising. Supposed ( talk) 10:14, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
I've just added Top Cashback to the list of notable cashback sites at the bottom. Since the article is constantly under attack from spammers trying to ad their website, someone might come along and remove it as not notable enough - especially since there's no Wikipedia article for it. I'm not too bothered if that happens but I've seen their advert on TV a few times now so I humbly suggest that makes them a notable site. Identz ( talk) 02:15, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
They're all reliable sources, but, as far as I can see, none of them discuss Top Cashback in detail--they all just mention it in passing, usually in a list of several other cashback websites; in some cases, cashback sites themselves are just one of 5 or 6 different "money saving tips". You're welcome to create the article, but, depending on exactly what they sources look like once it's together, it still might not be notable (since notability requires that the subject receive "significant coverage" in the sources. Qwyrxian ( talk) 13:40, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Added a link to the Loyalty Association, the cashback industry association in Britain, 16/05/08. Phreak79 ( talk) 11:13, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
I changed some of the example cashback sites listed so that only the most popular are there. To stop it being local to the UK I added some US sites I found here but I have no idea how popular the US sites listed are. Needs more international users to expand it with their knowledge. Identz 10:00, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Can I add to this? I think that the sites listed are not nessecarily the most popular in the UK. There are many that deserve a place in that list, similarly, there are some on that list that don't deserve to be there. I know of quite a few (having been cashbacking for years in the UK and saved thousands, and I know of many in australia and the states. there is also something lacking on the subject, notably the opportunities these sites offer members to earn extra cash for free. many run daily programs that over time can earn members a small fortune. i think that is worth addition. I could also add well to the affiliate programs list, as i think its alittle unfair to only include tradedoubler. its not as if they are the only one. In a short search, i have found about 10 UK programs and a similar number of US programs that are worthy of noting. I don't want to tread on anyones toes and jump into editing this page, but I'd be happy to help clean it up if there are no objections.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.56.66.167 ( talk • contribs) 17:24, Feb 23, 2007 (UTC)
A table has been added comparing the rates of some Cashback Websites. The has been moved from
Reward website page and I agree it is more appropriate on this page, but I don't like a chart that could change all the time (is anyone going to be updating it as these rates change frequently?)
More importantly, I was tying to make sure only the most popular UK cashback sites were included in the article (Greasypalm, Quidco, Rpoints, MutualPoints, and eDealsUK) based on
this chart to stop the whole thing being overun by spam from the 60+ sites. The table introduces Topcashback which is lower down.
I regularly have to remove a bit spam from one of the smaller sites from the article and it's hard to justify what should be included and what not.
Anyone have any thoughts on this?
Identz
23:03, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
I see this has been suggested. I really disagree. The current first paragraph of the Reward website defines them as
This seems a good description which means the definition includes many different types of sites that reward you for doing an action: paid-to-click, paid-to-view, paid-to-read, survey sites etc, etc.
But Cashback site are very different and I don't see how they even can be put in the same category. A person may have decided that they want to buy a new TV from a retailer. Before they make their purchase they decide to check a Cashback site to see if their is a discount available and might click through a link that gets them 5% of their money back. This is a very different action (and may be done by a very different type of person) than going to a Survey site and getting a few pence back for doing a survey. The latter is getting paid for doing a task while the former is a cashback closer to what you'd get by using a supermarket loyalty card for doing something you were going to do anyway.
Cashback websites often give users the ability to earn extra money by doing some repetitive task ('Daily Clicks' or 'Recurring Earners') but this is only an extra thing to bring in customers and not their main purpose. For this reason I think they deserve a small mention on the Reward website page but that doesn't make them a Reward Website since it is only a small part of their business (and many don't give Daily Clicks anyway).
While I agree that the content of both pages is similar right now, the Reward Website page may (and probably will) have more details added about all the paid-to-read-email sites and paid-to-click sites that Cashback Websites have absolutely nothing in common with
Identz
22:30, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Should this article be moved to 'cashback website' (singular)? Drum guy 18:53, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm a graduate student studying online marketing and am doing a rather large presentation on Cash Back/Rewards websites. As the poster above suggested, it might prove somewhat beneficial to add actual companies to this description. Ideally, I try to avoid any forms of advertisement suggestions on Wikipedia, but many people I've discussed "cash back sites" struggle to understand them until they visit the actual websites.
Below is a list of sites I am including in my presentation and have been working with my Professor with. I've also included a brief description of the relevancy of each (all the companies were chosen for providing a slightly different service).
<redacted--See below> Anyways, I'd appreciate feedback. I always like examples included in descriptions because it provides a greater context for a reader.
I feel a little bit uncomfortable about there solely being link on this article to Martin Lewis's website. That website is a layman's financial advice for profit entity. It does display bias in its review of financial services and products. I understand so do newspapers and we list those, however it's more the fact it's one link on its own that disturbs me a little.
Martin has preference over which cashback website is used. This is not a preference based on sound reasoning, as you can see when you review the said article article. Martin is known to have a historical relationship of promoting rpoints. The recommendation of rpoints is based on poor reasoning, and displays a bias. I think this is advertising. Supposed ( talk) 10:14, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
I've just added Top Cashback to the list of notable cashback sites at the bottom. Since the article is constantly under attack from spammers trying to ad their website, someone might come along and remove it as not notable enough - especially since there's no Wikipedia article for it. I'm not too bothered if that happens but I've seen their advert on TV a few times now so I humbly suggest that makes them a notable site. Identz ( talk) 02:15, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
They're all reliable sources, but, as far as I can see, none of them discuss Top Cashback in detail--they all just mention it in passing, usually in a list of several other cashback websites; in some cases, cashback sites themselves are just one of 5 or 6 different "money saving tips". You're welcome to create the article, but, depending on exactly what they sources look like once it's together, it still might not be notable (since notability requires that the subject receive "significant coverage" in the sources. Qwyrxian ( talk) 13:40, 15 February 2012 (UTC)