Talk:Epinions: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
reply to 24.196.161.92 false motivation for corporate vandalism |
||
| Line 26: | Line 26: | ||
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 |
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 His claim that the text is "out-of-date" (in his edit comment) is a an outright lie.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". |
|||
Revision as of 13:25, 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".