Talk:Epinions: Difference between revisions
reply to 24.196.161.92 false motivation for corporate vandalism |
Response to those who prefer subjective articles. |
||
| Line 29: | Line 29: | ||
24.196.161.92 keeps deleting discussion of the criticism of epinions.com. This seems looks like a corporate attempt to squash criticism, when as noted above, that crititism is a fact of epinions.com life. His claim that the text is "out-of-date" (in his edit comment) is a an outright lie. This looks like corporate wiki-vandalism. |
24.196.161.92 keeps deleting discussion of the criticism of epinions.com. This seems looks like a corporate attempt to squash criticism, when as noted above, that crititism is a fact of epinions.com life. His claim that the text is "out-of-date" (in his edit comment) is a an outright lie. This looks like corporate wiki-vandalism. |
||
Restored the previous version again, but changed "circle-jerkers" to "circle raters". |
Restored the previous version again, but changed "circle-jerkers" to "circle raters". |
||
I don't work for Epinions and this isn't an effort to squash criticism, it's an effort to help the article conform to any sort of objective standard. The information is out of date. It's not even debatable. The few members who still receive "Income Share" did their "circle-rating" many years ago, today it has no tangible effect. If you feel comfortable with articles which contain out of date material and are totally subjective, it's all yours. |
|||
Revision as of 13:34, 30 December 2005
I'm pretty sure Epinions started before 2001, since I published some reviews there in 2000. I think they've been around since 1999, but I'm not sure of the exact year when they got started. Someone might want to check on that.
NOTE: Epinions started June 1999.
The material on this page is so negatively weighted, it at least borders on an attack on Epinions.
--Vorpalbla 5/17/05
I think the phrase "circle-jerkers" needs to removed in regards to it's more riske connotation.--Daveswagon 06:12, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I've taken a shot at removing the non-NPOV angle to the article. It still needs improvement, but it's certainly a lot better than it was. --Keith
According to "mobiprof" in http://www.epinions.com/content_4411138180 the first members (all employees) were registered on 25 Jul 1999 and the first review was posted on 5 Jul 1999.
Circle-jerkers is evocative, but perhaps a small rewrite to use "rating circle" instead of "circle-jerker"?
Vorpalbla must be referring to the 5 May 2005 edits by 63.185.112.124. Those comments do seem an attack, but do contain a lot of valid criticism which epinions.com members are familiar with. Criticism of epinions.com dealings is a fact of life, so maybe that should be in here, Perhaps someone can rewrite it to NPOV and add back in under a "criticism" heading?
By the way, another thing that should probably be in here: epinions.com was bought by shopping.com. There now is a lawsuit with about 40 former employees including original founders against shopping.com, its board, and the epinions.com venture capitalist. They claim to have been cheated out of a fair share of epinions.com / shopping.com's IPO value.
- Tom
eBay bought off shopping.com. Epinions is also affiliated with Dealtime. And SOME epinions members still make $100/month.
Very few members still receive "Income Share", so that behavior isn't really a factor there anymore. "Circle-jerkers" is obviously biased and offensive. I think we need to check the motives & abilities of those in a big hurry to restore this broken version. -- December 30 2005
24.196.161.92 keeps deleting discussion of the criticism of epinions.com. This seems looks like a corporate attempt to squash criticism, when as noted above, that crititism is a fact of epinions.com life. His claim that the text is "out-of-date" (in his edit comment) is a an outright lie. This looks like corporate wiki-vandalism. Restored the previous version again, but changed "circle-jerkers" to "circle raters".
I don't work for Epinions and this isn't an effort to squash criticism, it's an effort to help the article conform to any sort of objective standard. The information is out of date. It's not even debatable. The few members who still receive "Income Share" did their "circle-rating" many years ago, today it has no tangible effect. If you feel comfortable with articles which contain out of date material and are totally subjective, it's all yours.