Talk:Yelp

src: alldatinginworld.info

GA review

So I have to confess I didn't notice the GA review below until just now. Where does that stand at the moment? It looks pretty well completed. I don't see any outstanding issues. Coretheapple (talk) 17:23, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

It looks like the reviewer hasn't been on (see here). Hopefully they'll circle back whenever they have time. CorporateM (Talk) 17:36, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Sometimes they stay in limbo for a long time. Months and months. Coretheapple (talk) 21:13, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

@user:Coretheapple FYI CorporateM (Talk) 15:30, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Video Talk:Yelp

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Yelp/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

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)

@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)

• 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)
  • @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)

style/layout

content

• 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Take at re-structuring controversy

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

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)

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

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)

Maps Talk:Yelp

Request Edit GA edits

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.

• Suggest removing the very last paragraph of the Community section as general trimming. (see GA review feedback)
• Suggest adding the content below to the end of the second paragraph of the "Alleged manipulation" section as the latest update after "filed an appeal."

• Suggest moving "Businesses can also update contact information, hours and other basic listing information or add special deals.[8][13]" to the Features section and merging the rest of the "Interactions" section into the summary at the top of the "Relationship with businesses" section until we find a better structure for the section.
• Suggest removing the See Also section. Paypal Mafia is more relevant for the CEO's page than here and I think Treedial is just spam.

CorporateM (Talk) 06:00, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

• •  Done, mostly. I kept foursquare in the see also section (if it is linked in the body let me know and I'll think about taking it out entirely) and made some copy-edits. Protonk (talk) 14:32, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

src: s3-media4.fl.yelpcdn.com

Recent edits

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)

user:HaeB took care of it. CorporateM (Talk) 15:58, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

src: s3-media1.fl.yelpcdn.com

New sources / recent events

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)

• Hu, Denni; Nakamura, Yuji (October 25, 2014). "Yelp CEO Sought to Buy Japan Review Website Tabelog". Bloomberg. Retrieved November 13, 2014. 

Not included in draft shared below - just says Yelp "expressed an interest" in acquiring Tablelog, according to Tablelog. Seems too trivial to include, though if someone disagrees they can add it. CorporateM (Talk) 15:09, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

• Farivar, Cyrus (December 10, 2014). "Bizarre Yelp lawsuit over alleged fake reviews to finally move ahead". Ars Technica. Retrieved January 5, 2014. 

Not included in draft shared below, as it's just a minor update of a judge ruling in Yelp's favor not to dismiss the case (it mentions a prior ruling favoring the other side). Probably best to wait until a final ruling is passed. I'm leaving it here in case another editor disagrees CorporateM (Talk) 15:30, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

• Camilla Vasquez (19 June 2014). The Discourse of Online Consumer Reviews. Bloomsbury Publishing. ISBN 978-1-4411-9684-2. 

Some content on Google Books Preview, but need to see about an inter-library loan to obtain the full text. CorporateM (Talk) 15:54, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Request edit

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)

• Couple comments: Many businesses fraudulently write reviews on their own businesses, - sounds a bit harsher/more negative than what is there already.

The text is actually the exact same; in both versions it says "fraudulently write reviews on their own business." However, looking at a thesaurus,[8] "fake" comes to mind as a softer alternative. CorporateM (Talk) 09:33, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

• That's not my issue. The old version starts with "Yelp has had conflicts with business owners reviewed on the site," (focusing on Yelp, and suggesting the the conflicts are mutual) whereas "Many businesses fraudulently write reviews on their own businesses" focuses on the businesses and thus appears to absolve Yelp of any wrongdoings. -- Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:43, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Aww - I thought that was redundant with the prior sentence: "According to BusinessWeek, Yelp has "always had a complicated relationship with small businesses."[2] which expresses mutual conflict. There's actually more text there devoted to the complaints of business owners than Yelp. However it's a pretty trivial thing (the current is fine) so maybe it would be more practical to just leave it how it is now in the currently live article? CorporateM (Talk) 19:49, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

• Or reword it slightly, perhaps? To avoid the redundancy -- Crisco 1492 (talk) 20:53, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

How about that? CorporateM (Talk) 21:08, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

• I like it. Okay, I'll leave this open for a bit and see if anyone else wants to weigh in. -- Crisco 1492 (talk) 21:26, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

• and make spa appointments. - Perhaps appointments for spas?

 Done CorporateM (Talk) 09:33, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

• internet-savvy adults 18-25 - insert "aged" -- Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:42, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

 Done CorporateM (Talk) 09:33, 8 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)

Thanks for taking a look user:SamWilson989. Currently the Conflict of Interest Guideline requires that an editor with a financial connection to the subject of the article, not directly edit the page on controversial topics. While most of the edits are copyediting, there are some additions that have to do with lawsuits and whatnot that would fall under that category, where I am not allowed to edit, lest it give the impression of impropriety or manipulation. Typically what I do though is create an annotated draft like the one you saw, than once there is consensus to implement it, I'll go ahead and clear up the annotations (like I just did), so it's easy to copy/paste the draft into article-space without doing each edit individually. Of course if you're not comfortable pasting in someone else's work, than there's no obligation to either. CorporateM (Talk) 05:33, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Sure, I'll implement the edit myself if that's what you want, though it may have to be later today for that to happen SamWilson989 (talk) 07:28, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

WP:NORUSH. If you can't get to it until later this week, that's fine too. Thanks for chipping in! CorporateM (Talk) 07:48, 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)

Thanks @User:Coretheapple. I added your update to the draft, so it wouldn't be lost in a copy/paste. You'll see some notes above on why I didn't include it originally, but it's one of those nuance issues different editors handle differently, when it comes to recent/ongoing events. CorporateM (Talk) 18:57, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

src: s.hdnux.com

A few updates

A few requested updates:

1. Suggest adding to the Community section just after "Reviewers may also be motivated by badges and honors, such as being the first to review a new location,[10] or by praise and attention from other users.[65]" something like the following: "Some users post reviews as a matter of protest or support of the businesses political views; Yelp attempts to filter these.
2. Suggest adding at the very end of the Features main section: "In March 2014, Yelp added features for ordering and scheduling manicures, flowers, golf and legal consultations, among other things, through Yelp."
3. Suggest adding as an external link: "Yelp: 'Billion Dollar Bully?'". CNBC. March 23, 2015. 
4. Bloomberg says the Yelp Elite Squad was founded in 2005, whereas the LA Times says Yelp started throwing parties for members in 2005, but the Elite Squad wasn't found until 2006. I would go with the LA Times, since they are more specific.
5. Suggest adding to the end of corporate history: "In June 2015, Yelp published a study alleging Google was altering search results to benefit its own online services."

CorporateM (Talk) 16:21, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

• Done 3. Questions for point 3 and 4: what's the point of added the external link? Could you please prepare a suggested wording for number 4? -- Chris Woodrich (talk) 02:40, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

@Crisco 1492: For number 4, in my opinion I would go with something like "Yelp began throwing parties for members in 2005 and founded the Yelp Elite squad in 2006". I support the LA Times source as being accurate, because it sounds like a more detailed clarification over the over-simplified version from Bloomberg. For the External link, I'm not attached to it, but generally speaking one of the uses for External links is for sources that can't be used in the References section. If someone is interested in the subject, it's useful to see Yelp and a lawyer for the plaintiff debate the issue, but as an interview it can't be used as a reliable source. (again, not attached) CorporateM (Talk) 17:09, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

• Alright. I'd probably label the EL though. -- Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:37, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

src: pbs.twimg.com

Recent edits request

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 and less sympathetic reviews referring to its valuation as "ridiculous" 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)

The first one definitely needed to be fixed. Just a lot of financial mumbo-jumbo and yes, the sourcing was bad. We can make a reference to the stock price declining if it is sourced to something better than this. Not sure about the second point you raise. Coretheapple (talk) 13:36, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks @Coretheapple:. For the second point, the source says at the bottom that it's a column. However, taking a closer look at it, I didn't realize it does seem to be a different allegation than the ones already covered. This one is about removing competitors' advertising from their profile for a fee, which is legitimately one of the features Yelp offers for "enhanced listings"[9] I also found no consensus skimming RSN to see if columns are considered RS'. This discussion says no, while six years ago here the honorable @DGG: argued in favor of a column source. So perhaps it is fine. CorporateM (Talk) 15:38, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

My quote in 2008 was not whether a column could be used as a source, but whether a column published in the format of a blog 2was to be judged as a blog or a column. That was relatively new st the time, but now, 7 years later, it is recognized that most columns are published that way. A column is by definition the opinion of a single person rather than the considered view of the news staff as a whole, and the responsibility for it is basically the reputation of the columnist, and needs to be reported in the name of the columnist, not just the name of the paper in which it is published--but that some columnists can be very reliable. The other link is in respect to one particular columnist who was held non-reliable (albeit without substantial discussion). It think the rule is basically very simple in one sense--it depends on the actual source-- and tin another sense complicated, because one must examine the reliability of the actual source for the actual material. I have no knowledge of this particular columnist. If, as CM says, this is a standard feature of their service one would expect better documentation. DGG ( talk ) 17:03, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes I don't see any problem with either that passage or its sourcing. This is a staff columnist for the Los Angeles Times. Coretheapple (talk) 17:56, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

RSN discussion is here. Seems to show no consensus one way or another. Coretheapple believes the column is reliable, because it is written by a journalist from the publication; @The Four Deuces: said columnists are not subject to editorial control from the newspaper. I suggested leaving a link to RSN here for whatever random editor responds to the Request Edit in a few months to do whatever they feel is right. CorporateM (Talk) 22:38, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

"News organizations", which is part of the "Identifying reliable sources" guideline is clear, "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact." While it may be the guideline is wrong, it is better to get consensus to change it before beginning to use columns as reliable sources. TFD (talk) 01:02, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

CorporateM is not quite fully expressing my views on this so I shall do so. It is not just that this appears in the LA TImes. This work that we are discussing here was not simply "editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces." What we are doing is relaying the content of reporting of facts by a notable journalist, David Lazarus. While he does have an opinion which he expresses, we are not mentioning it (though we could, if we attribute it to him). Now, if this was a tabloid, or if Lazarus was noted for his anti-Yelp views or for twisted and stupid reporting on Yelp, we clearly have an obligation to take that under consideration. The former is clearly not the case; as for the latter, is he? Overall I find it a bit irritating that people are treating this like an opinion column and not what it was, which was a reported piece by a notable journalist in a notable news organization, relaying facts that belong in this article. Now as for the treatment of it, just to be clear on that point, I think the current reference to it appears to be fine. Coretheapple (talk) 16:11, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

@Coretheapple: Wikipedia's definition of Column (periodical) says "What differentiates a column from other forms of journalism is that... it explicitly contains the author's opinion or point of view." Wikipedia mentions his opinion by calling it out as criticism. Your argument is that it's reliable for facts, not opinions, but the policy cited by the four deuces says the opposite, that opinion content is "rarely reliable for statements of fact", but may be for the author's opinion, even when authored by a professional journalist. I think The Four Deuces' point seems to be supported by current policy.

Personally, I absolutely despise the argument that a source is reliable for the opinion of the author. All sources, including press releases, primary sources, etc. are reliable accounts of the author's opinion; it's a cop-out for trying to justify an un-reliable source that we see at RSN all the time. It's almost always a weight or NPOV issue if not an RS issue. I can't believe we have this argument codified somewhere as policy, but so long as that is the will of our policies... CorporateM (Talk) 17:49, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

The passage about "rarely reliable for statements of fact" relates to staff editorials, not columns written by reporters, and the policy itself which even allows blogs, a lesser form of creature in journalism than a newspape. See WP:NEWSBLOG, which notes that "several newspapers, magazines, and other news organizations host columns on their web sites that they call blogs. These may be acceptable sources if the writers are professionals, but use them with caution because the blog may not be subject to the news organization's normal fact-checking process." This is in fact a column, not a blog, written by a notable journalist in the Lost Angeles Times. In any event, we are having an abstract discussion here. Do you have any specific outstanding request concerning this passage? Coretheapple (talk) 21:31, 10 May 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:

1. Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources says "Some news outlets host interactive columns they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professional journalists... and the blog is subject to the news outlet's full editorial control." The author is David Lazarus, who is a professional journalist. The column is probably subject to the same rules as a "column called a blog"
2. Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources also says "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact." Editorials and columns are both opinion pieces written by journalists. This policy is also most likely relevant.

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:

"Yelp also came into criticism by the Los Angeles Times columnist David Lazarus 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 as part of a paid feature.[10]source

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)

Ugh, actually if it is a primary source as alleged by number 2, that would make it unacceptable. Maybe we should do an RFC? CorporateM (Talk) 19:29, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

You can do whatever you wish, but frankly I'm getting weary of your hairsplitting and wikilawyering over this manifestly acceptable material. Coretheapple (talk) 20:27, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

It does not meet 1. Sure all columnists are journalists, but the issue is whether they are writing news articles or columns. The source clearly says "David Lazarus' column runs Tuesdays and Fridays." Writers of news blogs otoh must document their sources and use double-sourcing, and the editors may have their facts checked. Any errors found after publication are then reported in the corrections section and/or on the news blog. TFD (talk) 22:29, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

src: s3-media4.fl.yelpcdn.com

Yelp's business model is (apparently) extortion

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)

Request for commment

request edit

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)

Article is now updated with the suggested wording by User:SoWhy. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 18:00, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Storage for new sources

• Griggs, Brandon (August 20, 2015). "Rude TSA agent? Review them on Yelp". CNN. Retrieved August 20, 2015. 
• Berman, Russell (August 19, 2015). "Uncle Sam Wants You--to Write Reviews on Yelp". The Atlantic. Retrieved August 20, 2015. 
• "How Yelp plans to clean up one of the restaurant industry's most dangerous flaws". Washington Post. October 27, 2015. Retrieved October 27, 2015. 
• Ostrov, Barbara Feder (October 26, 2015). "Can Yelp help track food poisoning outbreaks?". CNN. Retrieved October 27, 2015. 
• Ostrov, Barbara Feder (October 23, 2015). "Yelp Reviews Can Take Food Poisoning Alerts Viral". NPR.org. Retrieved October 27, 2015. 
• Stempel, Jonathan (November 27, 2015). "Yelp prevails in lawsuit over authenticity of its reviews". Reuters India. Retrieved December 15, 2015. 

Updates

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)

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)

Recent edit

These edits by @Schlafwurst: removed a couple sentences of well-sourced criticisms without explanation. The following was removed:

• "but some negative reviews are very personal or extreme. Many reviews are written in an entertaining or creative manner."
• "The system has led to criticisms that business owners can bribe reviewers with free food or discounts to increase their rating, though Yelp users say this rarely occurs."

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)

 Done, thank you for your forthright alert. I too see no reason for removing these criticisms. Altamel (talk) 21:51, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

@User:CorporateM Could you take a look at something else? The article used to say Yelp makes restaurant reservations through OpenTable, which Schlafwurst changed to SeatMe. The sentence as it stands is probably incorrect, since Schlafwurst did not provide a new source for this change. Thanks, Altamel (talk) 22:00, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

@Altamel: Thanks for bringing this to my attention. In my ignorance, I presumed the company was renamed when I saw that change. I'm in class right now, but I will look into this over the weekend. CorporateM (Talk) 14:12, 26 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:

• Yelp partnered with OpenTable in 2010.[12] The integration with OpenTable allowed users to make reservations in the Yelp website even if they didn't have an OpenTable account and was largely a move to push competitor UrbanSpoon out of the market.[13]
• Yelp acquired OpenTable competitor SeatMe in 2013,[14] which prompted "speculation that the deal with OpenTable was in jeopardy.[15] SeatMe was transformed into "Yelp Reservations"[16]
• Yelp and OpenTable "gradually encroached on each other's territory," becoming increasingly competitive and ending the relationship in April 2015.[17]

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)

Per the discussion above, requesting the following changes:

• In the Lead: "as well as the online reservation service SeatMeYelp Reservations"
• Features section, two paragraphs up from the Features for business sub-section: "Yelp users can make restaurant reservations in Yelp through SeatMeYelp Reservations, a feature originally added in June 2010.[70][71] Yelp's reservation features were initially done through a 2010 partnership with OpenTable, but Yelp became increasingly competitive with OpenTable after its 2013 acquisition of SeatMe, resulting in the end of the partnership in April 2015. SeatMe was reworked into the current "Yelp Reservations" feature."

CorporateM (Talk) 18:38, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

 Done Altamel (talk) 21:47, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Yelp Reservations page

Yelp

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 o contribs) 22:02, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi there Hustemma101. This talk page is for discussing improvements to the Yelp article. For general discussion about Yelp, I would recommend an online form. Have a great day! Daylen (talk) 23:01, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Yelp Reservations

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)

Hi @CorporateM: I agree that the sections should be merged, I have been quite busy lately so I will merge them when I get a chance (if someone else wants to merge them now, go ahead). Update: I just realized someone has already removed the section, I might go back and merge a couple of parts of it back into the article. Daylen (talk) 05:33, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Screenshot requested

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)

What do you think about a screenshot from the mobile app? The app is probably more significant than the website, since 72% of Yelp searches are done through the app. (It's also more photogenic for a small image space). Either way I can set that up later this weekend. CorporateM (Talk) 15:12, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

That would be great! Daylen (talk) 02:49, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

@Daylen:. I have uploaded a mobile app screenshot here. CorporateM (Talk) 21:23, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Missing information: Yelp Cash Back

This article is missing information regarding Yelp cash back (https://yelp.com/rewards).

Sources:

• http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/talkingtech/2016/12/22/yelp-introduces-cash-back-program-consumers/95768842/
• http://www.digitaltrends.com/web/yelp-cash-back/

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.

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)

 Done Daylen (talk) 21:43, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Recent edits

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)

Reply 06-JUL-2018

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)

The extent of my editing was to move the Hassell v. Bird information from the lead, where it clearly did not belong, to a section in the body. Since there were already several sections, with headings, describing specific controversies involving Yelp, I created a new section to contain them and demoted all under that heading. As to the content itself, anything that is not properly cited should be flagged with {{citation needed}}, sources found and cited, or removed if no reliable sources can be found (not because the OP doesn't like sections devoted to criticism). WP:CRITS, cited by CorporateM, is quite clear: "Many organizations and corporations are involved in well-documented controversies, or may be subject to significant criticism. If reliable sources - other than the critics themselves - provide substantial coverage devoted to the controversies or criticisms, then that may justify sections and sub-articles devoted to the controversies or criticism." General Ization ^Talk 00:30, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

If the OP would like to discuss the merits, or lack of same, with the contributor of the content itself, that would be Eastbaylaw. General Ization ^Talk 00:33, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

The "Relationship with businesses" section has not changed its position within the article. Clearly the Hassell v. Bird information does not pertain to relationships with businesses (rather with consumers who post reviews), and the other two sections that are now in proximity to it are clearly controversies; it makes more sense that the three be grouped than that they all fall under the former heading. Note also, please, that I am the editor who added the {{refimprove section}} and {{primary}} templates to the Hassell v. Bird section when I moved the content. General Ization ^Talk 00:48, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Based on feedback from @General Ization:/@Spintendo: above I would like to modify my request to the following:

• Remove the Hassel V. Bird section
• Replace it with: "In 2018, in the case of Hassel v. Bird, a California court held that businesses cannot force Yelp to remove a review, even if the review is defamatory." This phrase very closely follows the first sentence of the Associated Press article cited summarizing the outcome. I think this fits perfectly in the Relationship with Businesses section, but suggest putting it under Controversies per Ization's comments.

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)

1. Y The Hassel v. Bird section, largely unreferenced, was removed.
2. Y The compromise sentence was put in its place.
3. Y The refimprove template was removed. Since the proposed compromise sentence that I implemented carries a primary source, I'll leave that template for the editor who placed it to remove.

Regards,  spintendo  13:20, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

I have edited further: "In 2018, in the case Hassell v. Bird, the California Supreme Court held by a narrow 4-3 margin that a business cannot force Yelp to remove a review, even if the review is defamatory of the business." This a) spells Hassell's name, thus the style of the case, correctly; b) correctly identifies the court as the state's Supreme Court and the fact that it was divided in its decision; and c) correctly summarizes the decision, which held that a specific business could not obtain an order. The court did not rule directly on the ability of businesses generally to do so; if the court's ruling has that effect, it will be through precedent. General Ization ^Talk 13:41, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

I also restored the link to the PDF of the court's decision. Though a primary source, the sentence is not reliant upon it since a secondary source (the AP article) is also cited. If we are going to boil an entire 102-page 33-page decision (plus another 60-odd pages of concurring and dissenting opinions) down to one sentence, we should maintain the link so that readers can easily see the court's full decision and the case background. General Ization ^Talk 13:54, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for these modifications.  spintendo  13:51, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

• I suggest adding more text to the material on the Supreme Court case. It seems skimpy. Also it should probably be a subsection and called "Supreme Court decision" or something like that rather than the caption of the case. Not a lot, but maybe a sentence or two . Coretheapple (talk) 12:48, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Insufficiently paraphrased text removed 07-JUL-2018

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.)

 spintendo  00:16, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Source of the article : Wikipedia