![]() | This 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. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
![]() | This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered. |
To avoid any remote appearance of impropriety, there are some edits related to the "Good Article" review I would like to request be reviewed and considered by a disinterested editor.
Latest on court case
|
---|
"In September 2014 the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals voted unanimously to uphold the case's dismissal, finding that even if Yelp did manipulate reviews to favor advertisers, this would not fall under the court's legal definition of extortion.<reF>{{cite news|title=Yelp can manipulate ratings, court rules|first=Bob|last=Egelko|date=September 4, 2014|url=http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Yelp-can-give-paying-clients-better-ratings-5731200.php|newspaper=San Francisco Chronicle|accessdate=October 1, 2014}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|publisher=Associated Press|title=Court Decides Yelp Can Change Ratings|September 4, 2014|url=http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/05/business/court-decides-yelp-can-change-ratings.html?_r=0|accessdate=October 1, 2014}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|title=Court Sides With San Francisco-Based Yelp In Lawsuit From Small Business Owners|date=September 4, 2014|url=http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2014/09/04/court-sides-with-san-francisco-based-yelp-in-lawsuit-from-small-business-owners-9th-circuit-court-of-appeals-online-reviews/|accessdate=October 1, 2014}}</ref>" |
CorporateM ( Talk) 06:00, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
The last couple edits appear to be unsourced original research (also redundant with sourced content in the article) and what looks like vandalism? Not quite the kind of blatant vandalism I can revert with a COI; does someone mind taking a look as to whether to revert? CorporateM ( Talk) 00:26, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
I am on the distribution list for Yelp's internal media coverage reports. When I spot a new source/event that may warrant inclusion, I'll be using this space to store them. CorporateM ( Talk) 15:46, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
![]() | An impartial editor has reviewed the proposed edit(s) and asked the editor with a conflict of interest to go ahead and make the suggested changes. |
It's been about 3 months since this article obtained the "Good Article" rank and many new sources have emerged since then. I also noticed the article still needs some copyediting, we could probably do with fewer sections via consolidation and a few issues like a spam link and other misc stuff have showed up. I've put together some proposed updates, tweaks and misc edits at User:CorporateM/Yelp using bold and strikeouts to indicate suggested edits. If a disinterested editor could review and approve/decline/discuss, I would be greatly appreciative of your time. There are some very minor edits (periods, commas and the like) that are not indicated in the draft.
As I was re-visiting the article, I also took a look at the source regarding Galbraith, which I think would be worth re-visiting in a separate discussion. CorporateM ( Talk) 16:02, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
I have reviewed the changes planned by CorporateM. Feel free to go ahead and implement them yourself, they are in line with WP:NPOV. SamWilson989 ( talk) 01:24, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
I added a brief update of the San Diego case, based on the ars technica article. Interesting. Coretheapple ( talk) 18:40, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
A July 2 / 2015 article on Zerohedge about Yelp's CEO "gives up trying to find a buyer for the company" elicited the following comment about the company: "Yelp is absolute horsesh1t for businesses. I have a buisness....and these f*cks harass the sh1t out of me to advertise...and if you don't pay them, they "Hide" the good reveiws, and post the not so good ones. We have 31 good reveiews that are "Filtered". If you go to the bottom of the page of most yelp businesses reveiws...down in the corner you can find a really small button that says "Filtered Reveiws". You click that...OH look...lots of good reviews hidden from the main site. Then when they call, they say they can work with you to get your GOOD "Filtered" reviews taken out of the "Filtered" area. We even have customers come back for their 2nd or 3rd time and say "Did you see the review I left...thanking you for what you did..?" And there it is...lost in the "Filtered" section. This is blackmail. F*ck them...I hope they crash and burn just like Facef*ck." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.67.109.182 ( talk) 12:12, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
I just noticed the following was recently added to the page analyzing fluctuations in the company's stock price:
"After a precipitous drop from over $100 to $50 over three months in early 2014, by May there were sympathetic reviews indicating it had been adequately corrected
[1] and less sympathetic reviews referring to its valuation as "ridiculous"
[2] based on forward
price–sales ratio analysis:
"revenue of $1.39 billion by 2019 ... gives it a forward price-to-sales ratio of 3. ... If we discount 15% for share appreciations ... and 5% for the dilution we actually find out that Yelp's forward price-to-sales ratio is actually 9 even if it meets all the analyst goals.""
The first source is written by a Forbes "Contributor" and I don't believe the ups and downs of stock prices is normally included. Can we trim this?
I also noticed the following was added and sourced to a "columnist"
Yelp also came into criticism by the Los Angeles Times in 2014 for the practice of selling competitor's ads to run on top of business listings, and allegedly offering to have the ads removed for a $75 monthly fee. ( source
This is redundant with the first paragraph of the section and I don't think it's worthwhile to list each individual case in which a small business makes similar allegations. Also suggest trimming.
CorporateM ( Talk) 16:21, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
@ Coretheapple: and @ The Four Deuces: I started researching this with an RfC in mind, but in taking a look at current guidance on the reliable sources policy, I think it can be hammered out.
A couple relevant policy excerpts:
If it is a primary source as alleged by numer 2, it shouldn't be used
These two policy excerpts taken together seem to suggest the source is fine, so long as it includes the author's opinions only and is attributed to the author. Therefore, I would suggest something like:
In this way, all of the factual statements are verified by Yelp's own website and some common sense. They do in fact run ads from competitors and do offer a paid option (Enhanced Profiles), where one of the features are to remove competitor advertising. Then the opinion of the columnist is included with attribution, without including factual claims from the column such as the $75 price-tag. Thoughts? CorporateM ( Talk) 19:24, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered. |
A few requested updates:
CorporateM ( Talk) 16:21, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
Is the following sentence acceptable (NPOV, not undue, reliably sourced, etc.): "Yelp also came into criticism by the Los Angeles Times in 2014 for the practice of selling competitor's ads to run on top of business listings, and allegedly offering to have the ads removed for a $75 monthly fee.( source)
Background:
Number 3 seems to suggest there is a possibility the column is acceptable, since it's written by a journalist. Number 4 seems to suggest that is is a primary source for the author's opinion even if it is written by a journalist and would therefore be undue/a bad use of a primary source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CorporateM ( talk • contribs)
Journalist David Lazarus of the Los Angeles Times also criticized Yelp in 2014 for the practice of selling competitor's ads to run on top of business listings, and allegedly offering to have the ads removed for a $75 monthly fee.
![]() | This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered. |
Requesting someone implement what has been established as consensus in the RFC above. @ SoWhy: had proposed some specific text "Journalist David Lazarus of the Los Angeles Times also criticized Yelp in 2014 for the practice of selling competitors' ads to run on top of business listings and then offering to have the ads removed as part of a paid feature." Certainly editors also have the option of wording it some other sensible way. CorporateM ( Talk) 20:21, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered. |
It's been about six months since I last participated here and since then many new sources have been published. As per usual, many are about individual reviews or other trivial manners, but two things that appeared to get widespread press attention was new Yelp pages for US government agencies and some material about health inspection scores. I have put some draft content below I'd like to suggest be added to the page, probably under Features, though it could also go under History. David King, Ethical Wiki (CorporateM) ( Talk) 19:41, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
draft content
|
---|
In late 2015, a "Public Services & Government" section was introduced to Yelp and the General Services Administration began encouraging government agencies to create and monitor official government pages. [6] For example, the Transportation Security Administration created official TSA Yelp pages. [7] [8] Later that year Yelp began experimenting in San Francisco with consumer alerts that were added to pages about restaurants with poor hygiene scores in government inspections. [9] Research conducted by the Boston Children's Hospital found that Yelp reviews with keywords associated with food poisoning correlates strongly with poor hygiene at the restaurant. Researchers at Columbia University used data from Yelp to identify three previously unreported restaurant-related food poisoning outbreaks. [10] |
I would also suggest trimming "based on a shortened version of "yellow pages"" from the early history section as unsourced; I was unable to find any sources to support this statement regarding Yelp's name. And finding a more neutral last sentence in the Lead that shows a debate with multiple viewpoints and accusations on both sides, as oppose to its overtly one-sided description currently. CorporateM ( Talk) 20:53, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
Done. Informational value overcomes promotional value.
TimothyJosephWood
15:19, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
References
{{
cite web}}
: CS1 maint: date and year (
link)
{{
cite web}}
: CS1 maint: date and year (
link)
![]() | This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered. |
These edits by @ Schlafwurst: removed a couple sentences of well-sourced criticisms without explanation. The following was removed:
Not sure why these would be trimmed, as they are cited to reliable sources like The New York Times. CorporateM ( Talk) 18:29, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
@ Altamel: There's actually quite a bit of press coverage/content regarding restaurant reservations features that I didn't notice at first blush in bringing the page up to GA.
A few key highlights include:
Of course the historical stuff should be reserved, but anything referring to current features, should actually call it "Yelp Reservations" (the current name for SeatMe) Let me know if there's anything else I can do to help. CorporateM ( Talk) 14:50, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered. |
Per the discussion above, requesting the following changes:
CorporateM ( Talk) 18:38, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
References
one
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).SFGate1
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).{{
cite news}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help)
Hi everyone, I really don't see a purpose in having Yelp Reservations as a separate article. The article is only a few sentences, so it could easily be a section on the Yelp page. Thoughts?
Daylen ( talk) 04:02, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
Currently there is a section called "Yelp Reservations" with a cleanup tag on it. It looks like the content was added here by @ Daylen: as a result of a merge from what use to be a separate article Yelp Reservations. Since Yelp Reservations is already covered in the fourth paragraph of the Features section, I'm not sure this redundant section is needed? Giving an individual feature its own section and infobox also seems like a bit of overkill. CorporateM ( Talk) 23:41, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
Hello *Unknown*
I have been using the app Yelp lately and I have not really liked it (so far). What do you guys think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hustemma101 ( talk • contribs) 22:02, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
It would be great if someone could add a screenshot of the Yelp homepage to the article's infobox. Thanks! Daylen ( talk) 05:39, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
This article is missing information regarding Yelp cash back ( https://yelp.com/rewards).
Sources:
Daylen ( talk) 22:57, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
@ Daylen: I propose the following text: "Yelp started a 7-10% cash back program at some US restaurants in 2016 through partnership with Empyr. [1] [2]
I'm not sure it's really needed (we don't need to list every feature and offer here), but I don't have a strong opinion. Just figured I'd help resolve the tag. Disclosure: I have a COI/financial connection with Yelp. CorporateM ( Talk) 18:47, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
References
The following text was found to be insufficiently paraphrased from the source material and was removed. An additional sentence was also removed, as it did not make grammatical sense without the insufficiently paraphrased text beside it. (See WP:CLOSEPARAPHRASE.)
Text as it appeared in the Yelp Wikipedia article |
Text as it appears in the Source Material |
---|---|
In 2016, Yelp invested in Nowait, an app that allows users to see how long they would have to wait at a restaurant that does not accept reservations, as well as put their names on the waitlist without being physically present at a restaurant. When their table is ready, users get a text message. Customers can also text back to say they’re running late, and restaurants can decide whether or not to hold the table for them. [1] | By using the Nowait guest app, users can see how long they would have to wait at a restaurant that does not accept reservations, as well as put their names on the waitlist without being physically present at a restaurant. When their table is ready, users get a text message. Customers can also text back to say they’re running late, and restaurants can decide whether or not to hold the table for them. [2] |
References
spintendo 00:16, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest was declined. The reviewer would like to request the editor with a COI attempt to discuss with editors engaged in the subject-area first. |
Recently, someone added a section called "Hassell v. Bird." The section says that "Yelp also censors reviews" and that Yelp is "misleading site visitors." It discusses what I presume is the editor's own personal experiences about trying to post negative reviews about Yelp itself on Yelp. Ironically, the section says that Yelp has been "widely criticized for censorship of consumer reviews" but the whole point of Hassell v. Bird was that Yelp is not required to censor reviews when threatened with defamation suits. The section contains no secondary sources and only one primary source that does not support any of the content. I request removing the section and/or replacing it with 1-2 sentences of neutral content from proper secondary sources (I can write if requested).
Additionally, I presume the same editor added a "Controversy" section, which is disfavored by WP:CRITS. In the process, they created a stub section for "Relationship with businesses." I request deleting the "==Controversy==" so the content will be under the more descriptive title again per Wikipedia's norms. CorporateM ( Talk) 22:09, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
The COI editor has suggested two options: deletion or substitution with some, as of yet, unspecified replacement text. Looking at the
SUNS suggestions, this doesn't appear to be a question of a COI editor needing an impartial reviewer to implement an uncomplicated edit request to remove or replace information. The request here concerns removing controversial information that another experienced editor added. Thus, the COI editor would do best to start a discussion which involves the editor who added that information, in this case,
General Ization.
Regards,
spintendo
23:18, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered. |
Based on feedback from @ General Ization:/@ Spintendo: above I would like to modify my request to the following:
If anyone feels some modifications from this request are in order, I encourage them to do so boldly without my input. I am looking for a quick correction of overt original research and attack content. I do not wish to debate exact verbiage, etc.. CorporateM ( Talk) 11:56, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
References
Online review site Yelp.com cannot be ordered to remove posts against a San Francisco law firm that a judge determined were defamatory, a divided California Supreme Court ruled Monday in a closely watched case that internet companies warned could be used to silence online speech.
![]() | This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered. |
Currently, the page has a list of competitors at the end of the Lead as follows:
Major competitors include TripAdvisor, Google review, and dianping.com (though Yelp does not operate in China).
I ask that this be removed, as most editors see these kinds of ever-expanding competitor lists as plugs and linkbait. CorporateM ( Talk) 19:29, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
The Lead currently states:
The Yelp.com automated filter algorithm removes many positive reviews from companies, when they refuse to buy advertising, which has caused controversy.
It originally said:
The Yelp.com automated filter algorithm removes many positive reviews from companies, in order to avoid fake reviews, which has caused controversy
The original version is a proven fact. Yelp's algorithm does attempt to remove fake reviews. In the process, many authentic ones are filtered.
The current version is a speculative accusation that has never been proven. There have been multiple government investigations, lawsuits, and studies to find out whether Yelp alters its filters against those that do not buy advertising, but they have all come up empty-handed.
I request that either the original factual version be restored, or that the current version be re-stated to summarize the controversy, rather than state Yelp is guilty as a matter of fact.
Pinging the GA reviewer @ Protonk: who may have some memory of these topics. As stated previously, I have a COI (see my user page) CorporateM ( Talk) 15:23, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
I wanted to re-spark this discussion about the Lead. @ Protonk: previously mentioned the Lead should cover the controversy around allegations that Yelp manipulates reviews based on advertising spend. However, I believe the current Lead:
As previously disclosed, I have a COI in that I work with Yelp to help them make requests like these. Sincerely. CorporateM ( Talk) 01:40, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest was declined. The request was not specific enough. |
The Lead states:
"The company has been accused of using unfair practices to raise revenue from the businesses that are reviewed on its site – e.g., by presenting more negative review information for companies that do not purchase its advertising services or by prominently featuring advertisements of the competitors of such non-paying companies. The company has acknowledged these practices to some degree, while denying certain behavior."
Presumably, the intent was to mean that Yelp "acknowledges" allowing businesses to advertise on pages about competitors, but is "denying" any manipulation of user reviews based on advertising purchases. However, since these two practices are lumped together into "these practices" it makes it sound like Yelp "acknowledged ... to some degree" the practice of manipulating reviews. They have not.
I would like to request the following change to make the sentence more specific and clear:
"The company
has acknowledged these practices to some degree, while denying certain behaviordoes allow businesses to advertise on pages about competitors but denies manipulating user reviews to criticize businesses that do not advertise."
CorporateM ( Talk) 15:26, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
Regards, Spintendo 03:12, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
I also took a look. I agree that the sentence was vague. I think it also didn't really add anything of value to the summary, so I simply removed it. The rewording proposed above would have been somewhat redundant and possibly not entirely accurate (e.g., exactly what "manipulating" means). — BarrelProof ( talk) 20:16, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
Does anybody know why Yelp has no entries whatsoever for Greece? ICE77 ( talk) 08:18, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
This recent news story might be helpful to include somewhere
John Cummings ( talk) 17:04, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
The opening of this article doesn't actually state what Yelp Inc. is. (A business.) So should the article start with something like, "Yelp is an American multinational e-commerce corporation based in _______." Consistent with how the opening wording of other Wikipedia articles about businesses begin? -- MaxineJP ( talk) 19:32, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This 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. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
![]() | This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered. |
To avoid any remote appearance of impropriety, there are some edits related to the "Good Article" review I would like to request be reviewed and considered by a disinterested editor.
Latest on court case
|
---|
"In September 2014 the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals voted unanimously to uphold the case's dismissal, finding that even if Yelp did manipulate reviews to favor advertisers, this would not fall under the court's legal definition of extortion.<reF>{{cite news|title=Yelp can manipulate ratings, court rules|first=Bob|last=Egelko|date=September 4, 2014|url=http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Yelp-can-give-paying-clients-better-ratings-5731200.php|newspaper=San Francisco Chronicle|accessdate=October 1, 2014}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|publisher=Associated Press|title=Court Decides Yelp Can Change Ratings|September 4, 2014|url=http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/05/business/court-decides-yelp-can-change-ratings.html?_r=0|accessdate=October 1, 2014}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|title=Court Sides With San Francisco-Based Yelp In Lawsuit From Small Business Owners|date=September 4, 2014|url=http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2014/09/04/court-sides-with-san-francisco-based-yelp-in-lawsuit-from-small-business-owners-9th-circuit-court-of-appeals-online-reviews/|accessdate=October 1, 2014}}</ref>" |
CorporateM ( Talk) 06:00, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
The last couple edits appear to be unsourced original research (also redundant with sourced content in the article) and what looks like vandalism? Not quite the kind of blatant vandalism I can revert with a COI; does someone mind taking a look as to whether to revert? CorporateM ( Talk) 00:26, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
I am on the distribution list for Yelp's internal media coverage reports. When I spot a new source/event that may warrant inclusion, I'll be using this space to store them. CorporateM ( Talk) 15:46, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
![]() | An impartial editor has reviewed the proposed edit(s) and asked the editor with a conflict of interest to go ahead and make the suggested changes. |
It's been about 3 months since this article obtained the "Good Article" rank and many new sources have emerged since then. I also noticed the article still needs some copyediting, we could probably do with fewer sections via consolidation and a few issues like a spam link and other misc stuff have showed up. I've put together some proposed updates, tweaks and misc edits at User:CorporateM/Yelp using bold and strikeouts to indicate suggested edits. If a disinterested editor could review and approve/decline/discuss, I would be greatly appreciative of your time. There are some very minor edits (periods, commas and the like) that are not indicated in the draft.
As I was re-visiting the article, I also took a look at the source regarding Galbraith, which I think would be worth re-visiting in a separate discussion. CorporateM ( Talk) 16:02, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
I have reviewed the changes planned by CorporateM. Feel free to go ahead and implement them yourself, they are in line with WP:NPOV. SamWilson989 ( talk) 01:24, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
I added a brief update of the San Diego case, based on the ars technica article. Interesting. Coretheapple ( talk) 18:40, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
A July 2 / 2015 article on Zerohedge about Yelp's CEO "gives up trying to find a buyer for the company" elicited the following comment about the company: "Yelp is absolute horsesh1t for businesses. I have a buisness....and these f*cks harass the sh1t out of me to advertise...and if you don't pay them, they "Hide" the good reveiws, and post the not so good ones. We have 31 good reveiews that are "Filtered". If you go to the bottom of the page of most yelp businesses reveiws...down in the corner you can find a really small button that says "Filtered Reveiws". You click that...OH look...lots of good reviews hidden from the main site. Then when they call, they say they can work with you to get your GOOD "Filtered" reviews taken out of the "Filtered" area. We even have customers come back for their 2nd or 3rd time and say "Did you see the review I left...thanking you for what you did..?" And there it is...lost in the "Filtered" section. This is blackmail. F*ck them...I hope they crash and burn just like Facef*ck." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.67.109.182 ( talk) 12:12, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
I just noticed the following was recently added to the page analyzing fluctuations in the company's stock price:
"After a precipitous drop from over $100 to $50 over three months in early 2014, by May there were sympathetic reviews indicating it had been adequately corrected
[1] and less sympathetic reviews referring to its valuation as "ridiculous"
[2] based on forward
price–sales ratio analysis:
"revenue of $1.39 billion by 2019 ... gives it a forward price-to-sales ratio of 3. ... If we discount 15% for share appreciations ... and 5% for the dilution we actually find out that Yelp's forward price-to-sales ratio is actually 9 even if it meets all the analyst goals.""
The first source is written by a Forbes "Contributor" and I don't believe the ups and downs of stock prices is normally included. Can we trim this?
I also noticed the following was added and sourced to a "columnist"
Yelp also came into criticism by the Los Angeles Times in 2014 for the practice of selling competitor's ads to run on top of business listings, and allegedly offering to have the ads removed for a $75 monthly fee. ( source
This is redundant with the first paragraph of the section and I don't think it's worthwhile to list each individual case in which a small business makes similar allegations. Also suggest trimming.
CorporateM ( Talk) 16:21, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
@ Coretheapple: and @ The Four Deuces: I started researching this with an RfC in mind, but in taking a look at current guidance on the reliable sources policy, I think it can be hammered out.
A couple relevant policy excerpts:
If it is a primary source as alleged by numer 2, it shouldn't be used
These two policy excerpts taken together seem to suggest the source is fine, so long as it includes the author's opinions only and is attributed to the author. Therefore, I would suggest something like:
In this way, all of the factual statements are verified by Yelp's own website and some common sense. They do in fact run ads from competitors and do offer a paid option (Enhanced Profiles), where one of the features are to remove competitor advertising. Then the opinion of the columnist is included with attribution, without including factual claims from the column such as the $75 price-tag. Thoughts? CorporateM ( Talk) 19:24, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered. |
A few requested updates:
CorporateM ( Talk) 16:21, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
Is the following sentence acceptable (NPOV, not undue, reliably sourced, etc.): "Yelp also came into criticism by the Los Angeles Times in 2014 for the practice of selling competitor's ads to run on top of business listings, and allegedly offering to have the ads removed for a $75 monthly fee.( source)
Background:
Number 3 seems to suggest there is a possibility the column is acceptable, since it's written by a journalist. Number 4 seems to suggest that is is a primary source for the author's opinion even if it is written by a journalist and would therefore be undue/a bad use of a primary source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CorporateM ( talk • contribs)
Journalist David Lazarus of the Los Angeles Times also criticized Yelp in 2014 for the practice of selling competitor's ads to run on top of business listings, and allegedly offering to have the ads removed for a $75 monthly fee.
![]() | This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered. |
Requesting someone implement what has been established as consensus in the RFC above. @ SoWhy: had proposed some specific text "Journalist David Lazarus of the Los Angeles Times also criticized Yelp in 2014 for the practice of selling competitors' ads to run on top of business listings and then offering to have the ads removed as part of a paid feature." Certainly editors also have the option of wording it some other sensible way. CorporateM ( Talk) 20:21, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered. |
It's been about six months since I last participated here and since then many new sources have been published. As per usual, many are about individual reviews or other trivial manners, but two things that appeared to get widespread press attention was new Yelp pages for US government agencies and some material about health inspection scores. I have put some draft content below I'd like to suggest be added to the page, probably under Features, though it could also go under History. David King, Ethical Wiki (CorporateM) ( Talk) 19:41, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
draft content
|
---|
In late 2015, a "Public Services & Government" section was introduced to Yelp and the General Services Administration began encouraging government agencies to create and monitor official government pages. [6] For example, the Transportation Security Administration created official TSA Yelp pages. [7] [8] Later that year Yelp began experimenting in San Francisco with consumer alerts that were added to pages about restaurants with poor hygiene scores in government inspections. [9] Research conducted by the Boston Children's Hospital found that Yelp reviews with keywords associated with food poisoning correlates strongly with poor hygiene at the restaurant. Researchers at Columbia University used data from Yelp to identify three previously unreported restaurant-related food poisoning outbreaks. [10] |
I would also suggest trimming "based on a shortened version of "yellow pages"" from the early history section as unsourced; I was unable to find any sources to support this statement regarding Yelp's name. And finding a more neutral last sentence in the Lead that shows a debate with multiple viewpoints and accusations on both sides, as oppose to its overtly one-sided description currently. CorporateM ( Talk) 20:53, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
Done. Informational value overcomes promotional value.
TimothyJosephWood
15:19, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
References
{{
cite web}}
: CS1 maint: date and year (
link)
{{
cite web}}
: CS1 maint: date and year (
link)
![]() | This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered. |
These edits by @ Schlafwurst: removed a couple sentences of well-sourced criticisms without explanation. The following was removed:
Not sure why these would be trimmed, as they are cited to reliable sources like The New York Times. CorporateM ( Talk) 18:29, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
@ Altamel: There's actually quite a bit of press coverage/content regarding restaurant reservations features that I didn't notice at first blush in bringing the page up to GA.
A few key highlights include:
Of course the historical stuff should be reserved, but anything referring to current features, should actually call it "Yelp Reservations" (the current name for SeatMe) Let me know if there's anything else I can do to help. CorporateM ( Talk) 14:50, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered. |
Per the discussion above, requesting the following changes:
CorporateM ( Talk) 18:38, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
References
one
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).SFGate1
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).{{
cite news}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help)
Hi everyone, I really don't see a purpose in having Yelp Reservations as a separate article. The article is only a few sentences, so it could easily be a section on the Yelp page. Thoughts?
Daylen ( talk) 04:02, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
Currently there is a section called "Yelp Reservations" with a cleanup tag on it. It looks like the content was added here by @ Daylen: as a result of a merge from what use to be a separate article Yelp Reservations. Since Yelp Reservations is already covered in the fourth paragraph of the Features section, I'm not sure this redundant section is needed? Giving an individual feature its own section and infobox also seems like a bit of overkill. CorporateM ( Talk) 23:41, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
Hello *Unknown*
I have been using the app Yelp lately and I have not really liked it (so far). What do you guys think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hustemma101 ( talk • contribs) 22:02, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
It would be great if someone could add a screenshot of the Yelp homepage to the article's infobox. Thanks! Daylen ( talk) 05:39, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
This article is missing information regarding Yelp cash back ( https://yelp.com/rewards).
Sources:
Daylen ( talk) 22:57, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
@ Daylen: I propose the following text: "Yelp started a 7-10% cash back program at some US restaurants in 2016 through partnership with Empyr. [1] [2]
I'm not sure it's really needed (we don't need to list every feature and offer here), but I don't have a strong opinion. Just figured I'd help resolve the tag. Disclosure: I have a COI/financial connection with Yelp. CorporateM ( Talk) 18:47, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
References
The following text was found to be insufficiently paraphrased from the source material and was removed. An additional sentence was also removed, as it did not make grammatical sense without the insufficiently paraphrased text beside it. (See WP:CLOSEPARAPHRASE.)
Text as it appeared in the Yelp Wikipedia article |
Text as it appears in the Source Material |
---|---|
In 2016, Yelp invested in Nowait, an app that allows users to see how long they would have to wait at a restaurant that does not accept reservations, as well as put their names on the waitlist without being physically present at a restaurant. When their table is ready, users get a text message. Customers can also text back to say they’re running late, and restaurants can decide whether or not to hold the table for them. [1] | By using the Nowait guest app, users can see how long they would have to wait at a restaurant that does not accept reservations, as well as put their names on the waitlist without being physically present at a restaurant. When their table is ready, users get a text message. Customers can also text back to say they’re running late, and restaurants can decide whether or not to hold the table for them. [2] |
References
spintendo 00:16, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest was declined. The reviewer would like to request the editor with a COI attempt to discuss with editors engaged in the subject-area first. |
Recently, someone added a section called "Hassell v. Bird." The section says that "Yelp also censors reviews" and that Yelp is "misleading site visitors." It discusses what I presume is the editor's own personal experiences about trying to post negative reviews about Yelp itself on Yelp. Ironically, the section says that Yelp has been "widely criticized for censorship of consumer reviews" but the whole point of Hassell v. Bird was that Yelp is not required to censor reviews when threatened with defamation suits. The section contains no secondary sources and only one primary source that does not support any of the content. I request removing the section and/or replacing it with 1-2 sentences of neutral content from proper secondary sources (I can write if requested).
Additionally, I presume the same editor added a "Controversy" section, which is disfavored by WP:CRITS. In the process, they created a stub section for "Relationship with businesses." I request deleting the "==Controversy==" so the content will be under the more descriptive title again per Wikipedia's norms. CorporateM ( Talk) 22:09, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
The COI editor has suggested two options: deletion or substitution with some, as of yet, unspecified replacement text. Looking at the
SUNS suggestions, this doesn't appear to be a question of a COI editor needing an impartial reviewer to implement an uncomplicated edit request to remove or replace information. The request here concerns removing controversial information that another experienced editor added. Thus, the COI editor would do best to start a discussion which involves the editor who added that information, in this case,
General Ization.
Regards,
spintendo
23:18, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered. |
Based on feedback from @ General Ization:/@ Spintendo: above I would like to modify my request to the following:
If anyone feels some modifications from this request are in order, I encourage them to do so boldly without my input. I am looking for a quick correction of overt original research and attack content. I do not wish to debate exact verbiage, etc.. CorporateM ( Talk) 11:56, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
References
Online review site Yelp.com cannot be ordered to remove posts against a San Francisco law firm that a judge determined were defamatory, a divided California Supreme Court ruled Monday in a closely watched case that internet companies warned could be used to silence online speech.
![]() | This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered. |
Currently, the page has a list of competitors at the end of the Lead as follows:
Major competitors include TripAdvisor, Google review, and dianping.com (though Yelp does not operate in China).
I ask that this be removed, as most editors see these kinds of ever-expanding competitor lists as plugs and linkbait. CorporateM ( Talk) 19:29, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
The Lead currently states:
The Yelp.com automated filter algorithm removes many positive reviews from companies, when they refuse to buy advertising, which has caused controversy.
It originally said:
The Yelp.com automated filter algorithm removes many positive reviews from companies, in order to avoid fake reviews, which has caused controversy
The original version is a proven fact. Yelp's algorithm does attempt to remove fake reviews. In the process, many authentic ones are filtered.
The current version is a speculative accusation that has never been proven. There have been multiple government investigations, lawsuits, and studies to find out whether Yelp alters its filters against those that do not buy advertising, but they have all come up empty-handed.
I request that either the original factual version be restored, or that the current version be re-stated to summarize the controversy, rather than state Yelp is guilty as a matter of fact.
Pinging the GA reviewer @ Protonk: who may have some memory of these topics. As stated previously, I have a COI (see my user page) CorporateM ( Talk) 15:23, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
I wanted to re-spark this discussion about the Lead. @ Protonk: previously mentioned the Lead should cover the controversy around allegations that Yelp manipulates reviews based on advertising spend. However, I believe the current Lead:
As previously disclosed, I have a COI in that I work with Yelp to help them make requests like these. Sincerely. CorporateM ( Talk) 01:40, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest was declined. The request was not specific enough. |
The Lead states:
"The company has been accused of using unfair practices to raise revenue from the businesses that are reviewed on its site – e.g., by presenting more negative review information for companies that do not purchase its advertising services or by prominently featuring advertisements of the competitors of such non-paying companies. The company has acknowledged these practices to some degree, while denying certain behavior."
Presumably, the intent was to mean that Yelp "acknowledges" allowing businesses to advertise on pages about competitors, but is "denying" any manipulation of user reviews based on advertising purchases. However, since these two practices are lumped together into "these practices" it makes it sound like Yelp "acknowledged ... to some degree" the practice of manipulating reviews. They have not.
I would like to request the following change to make the sentence more specific and clear:
"The company
has acknowledged these practices to some degree, while denying certain behaviordoes allow businesses to advertise on pages about competitors but denies manipulating user reviews to criticize businesses that do not advertise."
CorporateM ( Talk) 15:26, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
Regards, Spintendo 03:12, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
I also took a look. I agree that the sentence was vague. I think it also didn't really add anything of value to the summary, so I simply removed it. The rewording proposed above would have been somewhat redundant and possibly not entirely accurate (e.g., exactly what "manipulating" means). — BarrelProof ( talk) 20:16, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
Does anybody know why Yelp has no entries whatsoever for Greece? ICE77 ( talk) 08:18, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
This recent news story might be helpful to include somewhere
John Cummings ( talk) 17:04, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
The opening of this article doesn't actually state what Yelp Inc. is. (A business.) So should the article start with something like, "Yelp is an American multinational e-commerce corporation based in _______." Consistent with how the opening wording of other Wikipedia articles about businesses begin? -- MaxineJP ( talk) 19:32, 14 February 2022 (UTC)