Talk:Epinions

This article was nominated for deletion on 22/7/2006. The result of the discussion was speedy keep.

acquisition history / rating circle

Regarding the acquisition history of Epinions: Epinions was acquired by DealTime.com in 2003. Later that same year, DealTime acquired the shopping.com domain name and adopted it as their business name.

Refs:

--KSchwartz 04:42, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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 risque 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 Wiki users are comfortable with articles which contain out of date material and are laughably subjective, the site will look like a haven for mediocre ex-Epinions writers. Hit a nerve?

---

> "I don't work for Epinions" Oh, you work for ebay.com then? Sorry mate, but it is funny that you don't deny that upfront when you do deny working fur epinions.com.

> "it's an effort to help the article conform to any sort of objective standard. The information is out of date" So, you are now claiming rating-circles don't exist anymore? No, you confirm it: "today it has no tangible effect" (but they do exist, hu? So how did you measure effect? *cugh*)

Circle-jerking is alive and well, but I dont have to tell you that. You use it all the time, but just dont want others to know your dirty little secret, huh?

I edited out that colorful word to protect those delicate senses you used as another pretense for your corporate twisting of the truth. Some people may dislike that edit, but it is just an edit. Your agressive deletion of an entire paragraph is vandalism. To paraphrase your own words: I think we need to check the motives & abilities of those in a big hurry to keep deleting that paragraph.

> "If Wiki users are comfortable with articles which contain out of date material and are laughably subjective, the site will look like a haven for mediocre ex-Epinions writers. Hit a nerve?" You mean "If Wiki users are comfortable with mediocre epinions writers who circle-jerk to get their high ratings and titles vandalising wiki articles, trying to hide their abusive ways, and lying in the discussion thread to get their way, wiki articles about companies will reduce to nothing but corporate propaganda."?

It is just a paragraph, but it seems pretty informative for just a few sentences. Here is a entire article about it by an epinions.com Category Lead: Welcome to Bambi's Epinions House of Trustitution, And, oh, a Category Lead does work for epinions.com; a Category Lead is an epinions.com contractor.

Realistically, circle-rating (the replacement word) will remain alive until epinions.com does something about it. Doh. You are right about on thing: this is not debatable. You are guilty of vandalising a wiki article.

---

My point is this: Discussion about any of these topics belongs on this page, not the main page. I frankly don't care if some writers have a beef to grind with Epinions, I just prefer to see straight information in a "pedia" which pretends to be objective. I don't work for Ebay, Epinions, or any of its partners or associates. You want Wikipedia to be another kind of Epinions, where opinion has as much weight as fact, fine. Thanks for educating me on the kind of information I'll find at Wikipedia. -"24.196.161.92"

Criticism

I removed the ^{[citation needed]} tag from the Criticism section because Epinions does indeed suppress negative reviews to anonymous viewers. You can demonstrate this by logging in/out and reading reviews.

Negative reviews are often buried on Epinions, which is unfortunate because information about the things that annoy and frustrate users of a product are often the most interesting. Dajhorn 18:29, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would have added it back, except the entire criticism section seems to have been renamed. Rants which say nothing about the product are suppressed, but there's no specific supression (or suppresion mechanism) for negative reviews. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 21:18, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion

I have removed the deletion entry and below I will try and explain why. Firstly this is not self promotion, I have created and submitted content to several Reward websites articles and it has been said that I am "self promoting" all of them, yet I would have to have a stake in all these companies if this were the case and that's unlikely. Second quidco and rpoints are very notable, an article by Martin Lewis in The Guardian was dedicated to them but I am having problems finding the actual article and can only find references to it. I will try and use my uni newspaper subscription to find it. Note that Paypal is a company, is highly notable in part because it's owned by ebay. Epinions is also owned by ebay, so forfills the same criteria. I also don't see why these websites should be any more notable than the alternatives offered above that are less popular at the moment because they don't have the weight of a large corporation behind them. I believe wikipedia is used to inform people in an unbiased manner There is contraversy surrounding the way these businesses operate and there is little information about this on the web, certainly very little in an unbiased form. Supposed 12:27, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think this entry is (or, rather, could be) plenty useful to readers. The "Criticism" section which someone removed recently because it was not NPOV could easily have been fixed to bring it in line with NPOV. The fact stated therein, that some useful reviews are in fact suppressed on Epinions, is demonstrably verifiable by viewing the same topics while both logged in and logged out: some useful reviews disappear when you're not logged in, which is also to say, if you're just a member of the general public (non-member). The reason I am not bothering to fix the entry myself or to weigh in on the deletion vote is that I know that any time I spend improving this entry will be wasted the next time someone "unimproves" it, or it gets deleted. It's not worth my time for something that many people just absolutely refuse to be neutral about. Lumbercutter 16:19, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

213.84.7.90 and the futility of this page

This user has a very limited scope of edits and many reek of "agenda" and "bad faith". The self-referencing link, the argument with the other anon above, reasons for reverts like "you're wrong", etc. I will discontinue watching this page, for now it's worthless, as Lumbercutter says above.--Son of Somebody 17:36, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What's wrong the page, aside from misguided anon editors? — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 21:09, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For one, validation of the term "trustitution", coined in the Epinions essay linked from this page, seems like a weak spot. I don't doubt that these trust circles exist, but when I read the essay I have serious doubts about its reliability. The essay is essentially a humor piece by an author who even admits he has a conflict of interest. Presumably, the author is making extra cash by linking here, maybe I'm wrong. I have other material objections to the form, but having watched this page for some months, it's clear that this user has control of its status quo because of his/her zeal to label an intangible set of opinions into a immutable fact. That, and it's just not that important. Until someone is willing to do a major overhaul, I believe it's a lost cause. Good luck to those who judge otherwise :)

--Son of Somebody 23:47, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur.Rubin and the futility of this page

Arthur.Rubin has a limited scope in his edits. His edits are in bad faith, to support his clear agenda. He demands proof for well-known facts, balks when it is given, and writes accusations her as "history" when he gets a demand to back up his edits. Arthur.Rubin is an epinions member who is financially profiting from the hats he gets by participating in rating circles. His circle rating gets and keeps "Advisor" and "Top Reviewer" labels. The essay was linked because Arthur.Rubin keeps rewriting this entry to delete the truth - when the text was corrected, he demanded external links... Thus the link to a piece by a current epinions.com contractor - and now Arthur.Rubin claims that he has serious doubts about its reliability. Truth is, on Aug 25 '04, Arthur.Rubin rated that opinion "Very Helpfull". ratings of that review Just a humor piece? Are you blind? It is fact presented through humor. You should recognize a few members - perhaps even yourself!! There are 141 comments, read them to understand... oh wait, you know it is true, buty our edits are about denying the click circles that get you your profitable "Advisor" and "Top Reviewer" labels. And recognizing yourself... that must hurt! Ouch! Arthur.Rubin claims that the author (scmrak) admits a conflict of interest. That claim does not make sense. Just for the heck of it, I searched that text for "conflict", and did not find it. -213.84.7.90

Would you please pay attention. When the text was "corrected" to omit the fact that smrack is a lead, I put it back, although I have doubts as to the accuracy of the piece. (Accuracy is not a requirement for a high rating in a humor piece, as you should know, if you've actually read Epinions "reviews" in those categories.) For what it's worth, I do not participate in click circles, or even write-offs any more. Furthermore, if you read to the end of scmrak's review, he stated it was parody, and that he does not participate in click circles, making it unlikely that he now knows they exist.

There is no reliable source that "click circles" now exist (nor is there likely to be).

I removed the comment about CL's and TR's reviews being always displayed above reviews of others, because it's demonstrably false.

Thinking back, I have no idea which of my edits you're complaining about. Please be more specific.

I also believe that your note here borders on violating WP:AGF, although I will not request deletion of the comment. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 13:12, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I found the edits you disapprove of. I stated that CL and TR reviews are placed more highly than they would be with the same ratings if the person were not a CL or TR. You stated they they were almost always placed at the top. Your statement is not capable of confirmation, even with the assistance of Epinions staff.

And I (or another editor) changed smrack's statement from "confirming" the existence of click circles to "claiming". I think "confirming" would require some additional reliable source. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 13:22, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(Attempted to refactor and reply in similar indentation. The anon's indentation/quoting convention isn't readable at all.)

(AR) = User:Arthur Rubin 13:12, 29 August 2006 (UTC) (AR2) = User:Arthur Rubin 13:22, 29 August 2006 (UTC) (anon)= User:213.84.7.90 17:07, 29 August 2006 (UTC) (AR3) = User:Arthur Rubin 18:24, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(AR) Would you please pay attention. When the text was "corrected" to omit the fact that smrack is a lead, I put it back, although I have doubts as to the accuracy of the piece. (Accuracy is not a requirement for a high rating in a humor piece, as you should know, if you've actually read Epinions "reviews" in those categories.) For what it's worth, I do not participate in click circles, or even write-offs any more. Furthermore, if you read to the end of scmrak's review, he stated it was parody, and that he does not participate in click circles, making it unlikely that he now knows they exist.

(AR) There is no reliable source that "click circles" now exist (nor is there likely to be).

(AR) I removed the comment about CL's and TR's reviews being always displayed above reviews of others, because it's demonstrably false.

(AR) Thinking back, I have no idea which of my edits you're complaining about. Please be more specific.

(AR) I also believe that your note here borders on violating WP:AGF, although I will not request deletion of the comment. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 13:12, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

(AR2) OK, I found the edits you disapprove of. I stated that CL and TR reviews are placed more highly than they would be with the same ratings if the person were not a CL or TR. You stated they they were almost always placed at the top. Your statement is not capable of confirmation, even with the assistance of Epinions staff.

(AR2) And I (or another editor) changed smrack's statement from "confirming" the existence of click circles to "claiming". I think "confirming" would require some additional reliable source. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 13:22, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

(anon) Would you please pay attention? Wasn't I the one who pointed out that scmrak is a Category Lead (contractor) and didn't you edit that out?

(AR3) Nope. I didn't edit it out. It was someone else.

(anon) You also keep removing the comment that MOST CL and TR reviews are displayed above those of others. That text is clear and correct. What you replace it with is hardly readable. Why? Why do you want to destroy good text?

(AR3) Your text is not clear, although probably correct, and completely unverifiable. (Are the reviews placed at the top because CLs and TRs tend to write good reviews, or because of the status.) My text is clearly sourcable to Epinions itself; CL and TR reviews are placed higher because of that status. If you want to rewrite for clarity, that's fine.

(anon) You claim: "Furthermore, if you read to the end of scmrak's review, he stated it was parody". That is just another lie. Why do you keep lying? Think no one will check? First you claim that he admits a conflict of interest. Now you claims he states it is parody. I ask everyone to follow the link and check for themselves: both Arthur.Rubin claims are false. He is making up his "arguments" as he goes along. Check the text. The word "conflict" does not appear. The word "parody" does not appear.

I have to wonder, did you bother to read it at all? It is a funny text, but he is very clearly serious. Read the last few paragraphs carefully. This is a epinions.com contractor telling you the click circles do still exist, and how to find them. Now, Arthur.Rubin, I understand that you are unhappy about scmrak telling everyone how to expose the likes of you. You want to deny your click-circling, but you have to do that somewhere else.

(AR3) There is an appearance of conflict of interest in both his review and in my statement. I didn't say there was an actual conflict of interest in either case.

(anon)You write " I do not participate in click circles, or even write-offs any more." Oh, just "not any more", huh? But you are afraid that scmrak's methods expose your history of circle-rating?

(AR3) I never participated in "click circles" except in some "write-offs". I don't participate in write-offs any more, either. And I haven't deleted the link to scmrak's article.

(unknown whether AR2 or anon) Yes, I do believe that your notes here border on violating WP:AGF. I did not request deletion of comments, but decided to reply in just the same way. If you are unhappy about the tone, consider your own tone first.

(anon) You are the one who demanded references for circle-rating, thinking there was none. I provided it, and now you keep deleting it, denying it, making up lies about it. You cant have your cake and eat it. You cant circle-rating and and keep denying it. You cant ask for references and then decide you dont like them.

(AR3) OOPS. I did delete the links. I'll reinsert scmrak's as a reference

(anon) Please refrain from further mass-deleting of useful links that compliment the text. Please stop trying to promote your "viewpoint" just because you don't want readers to know the facts.

Amazon

My experience is that amazon is the most useful alternative to epinions. The article did not even mention amazon. If someone can figure out a good way to include this, that will not offend someone, please do! 69.87.203.44 15:24, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AR seems to object to mentioning Amazon, perhaps the most relevant competition to epinions. He removed any mention of it. Now it will be up to the rest of you to decide what to do. 69.87.199.136 19:04, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Misuse of Epinions Logos and page likeness (Trademarks)

Terms of use:

1. License. If Epinions, Inc. makes available to you a logo for downloading, Epinions hereby grants to you a nonexclusive, nonassignable, nonsublicenseable, royalty-free license to display one of the Epinions logos above, including the associated trademark(s) and HTML code (collectively, the "Logo") for the sole purpose of (a) linking to the Epinions.com home page, your personal profile page, or your affiliate home page, or (b) if you are a member of the press, including the Logo in an article that references Epinions. If Epinions makes available to you for downloading HTML code that calls on its servers, Epinions hereby grants to you a nonexclusive, nonassignable, nonsublicenseable, royalty-free license to use the HTML code above (the "Code") without modification for the sole purpose of calling on Epinions' servers to include the associated Logo on your site.

2. Restrictions.

2.1 If you are using the license described in Section 1(a), you must use the Logo as an active hypertext link only to a page enumerated there. You may not frame Epinions.com, cause the link to create a new browser window (unless such window occupies 100% of the user's screen and appears above all other browser windows), or otherwise cause users to display the site in a distorted fashion.

2.2 You may display the Logo only in the form and at the size provided to you. You may not modify or alter the Logo or Code in any way, including size, proportions, colors, elements, type or any other respect. You may not animate, morph or otherwise distort the Logo's perspective or dimensional appearance, nor may you use screen shots of your pages (to the extent that the Logo appears in the screen shot) in any other medium (except as permitted by Section 1(b)). If Epinions provides you with a substitute version of the Logo, you shall replace the Logo as soon as reasonably possible.

2.3 The Logo shall be surrounded by a reasonable amount of empty space, and you may not use the Logo in conjunction with other logos or marks in a way that would create a combination mark. You may not use the Logo in a way that suggests that Epinions endorses or sponsors your site. The Logo may not appear larger or more prominently than other branding on the page on which it is displayed.

2.4 You may not use the Logo in any way that tarnishes, blurs or dilutes the quality of Epinions' trademarks or any associated goodwill. Without limiting the foregoing, you shall not display the Logo on any pages that contain infringing or illegal content.

2.5 You acknowledge Epinions' sole and exclusive ownership of the Logo and the Code, and you shall not take any action inconsistent with such ownership, such as adopting, using, registering, or attempting to register any logo or trademark confusingly similar to the Logo. All use of or goodwill associated with the Logo shall inure to Epinions' benefit. You may not use the Logo or Code in any manner not expressly authorized under this Agreement.

3. Termination. Epinions may terminate this Agreement or the trademark or Code license at any time for any reason or no reason. You may terminate this Agreement at any time for any reason or no reason. This Agreement and your license automatically terminates if you breach any provision of this Agreement. In the event of termination, (a) you shall immediately remove the Logo or Code from your site and otherwise cease using the Logo and Code, and (b) Sections 3-7 shall survive.

4. No Warranty. THE LOGO AND CODE IS PROVIDED "AS IS." EPINIONS DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS, IMPLIED OR STATUTORY, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF TITLE, MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. Some states do not allow the disclaimer of implied warranties, so the foregoing disclaimer may not apply to you. This warranty gives you specific legal rights and you may also have other legal rights which vary from state to state.

5. Liability Limits. EPINIONS DISCLAIMS ALL CONSEQUENTIAL, INCIDENTAL OR SPECIAL DAMAGES OR LOST PROFITS ARISING OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THIS AGREEMENT, THE CODE OR THE LOGO (HOWEVER ARISING, INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE). EPINIONS' TOTAL LIABILITY TO YOU IS LIMITED TO $1,000. Some states do not allow the foregoing limitations of liability, so they may not apply to you.

6. Entire Agreement/Amendment. This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement, and supersede the provisions of any other agreements or understandings (oral or written), between the parties with respect to the Logo and Code. However, this Agreement does not modify in any respect the Epinions Member Agreement or associated documents. This Agreement may be amended only by a writing physically signed by both Epinions and you. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Epinions may modify the Agreement in its sole discretion by notifying you by email of any proposed changes, which changes shall be effective upon when a notice is sent to your email address. If you do not agree with any amendments, you may terminate your license to the Logo or Code.

7. General. This Agreement is governed in all respects by the laws of the State of California as such laws are applied to agreements entered into and to be performed entirely within California between California residents. Both parties submit to personal jurisdiction in California and further agree that any cause of action arising under this Agreement shall be brought exclusively in a court in San Mateo County, California. Epinions shall be excused for any failure to perform to the extent that its performance is prevented by any reason outside of its control. No agency, partnership, joint venture, employment or franchise relationship is intended or created by this Agreement. If any portion of this Agreement is deemed unenforceable, that portion shall be enforced to the maximum extent possible and the remaining portions of the Agreement shall be given full effect. Epinions' failure to act in a particular circumstance does not waive the ability to act with respect to that circumstance or similar circumstances.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 162.40.199.204 (talk • contribs) 16:26, January 3, 2007 (UTC)

Clause 1(b) applies to our use of the logo, even without fair use. Trademark fair use would clearly allow displaying one copy of the logo in an article on Epinions, with no restrictions whatsoever. We are claiming fair use on the screen shot, and none of these clauses restricts LINKING to Epinions content. Including an image from the Epinions site may be problematic, but we're not doing that.

And, if you really are representing Epinions.com / Shopping.com, the bottom of each page includes a pointer to the DCMA contact address for the WikiMedia Foundation, which is where you should be complaining. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 20:13, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup tag

Explain. I see nothing to clean up in that section, except possibly removing the similar sites. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 23:47, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trivia

I deleted this section, simply because all it contained was info on the site's "youngest" member. Blantant self-promotion isn't exactly relevent to the article.-Brittpinkie 19:36, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Epinions.jpg

Image:Epinions.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:19, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could anybody please explain what possible use or interest is Epinions to the average Internet User?

Often when browsing I end up on an Epinions page (is it supposed to mean "Opinions" or is the "Ep" part of the name supposed to infer "Epicure" or something? Normally the loading time of the page is totally GLACIAL, even on broadband, and the content is totally puerile (Illiterate USA readers look that up in Websters). Waste of time.

Does someone own this page?

Is this page closed for edits?

My edits were undone.

In the section where it's noted that reviewers are not notified about SAPs - added that Category Leads typically email with those added links. Maybe not true for all categories but certainly true across several (maybe all). Current entry suggests reviewers never know when additions are made to the database.

The unofficial Epinions dictionary is certainly unofficial. User, in fact, coined many of the terms and then promoted his version of reality.

Not sure how reviews could be classified as "journalism" in the lead paragraph. Kind of like calling herbalists medical doctors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BamBamBoy (talk • contribs) 14:13, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your last point certainly seems to have merit, but, in general, unsourced material (notification of SAPs), and belaboring the obious ("the unofficial Epinions dictionary is unofficial") is not permitted in articles. You didn't make any edits relating to "journalism". — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:52, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't see any edit button for the top part.

Why include an outside resource link that does not reflect the reality for most members of the community? That simply contributes to one of the problems on the site - cliques. When one person or one small group attempts to "define" the space, then members leave and potential members back click and move on. That link should be listed, at least, as spoof or humor if it's a source here. The bulk of members do not use that in group lingo.

Why include the statement that when SAPs are requested that the requesting person doesn't know and that others come along and post before the original person having requested gets a chance to put up the review? That statement that <a>is listed</a> is just as "unsourced" as the statement that Category Leads typically send emails letting memebers knew when their SAPs are added. I'm sure that does happen. I know that CLs send notification as well. It's just two experiences basically with one approved for print and the other not.

Is this your page then? Maybe I'm not supposed to add notes. Sorry if that's the case. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BamBamBoy (talk • contribs) 21:02, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Having New Products Added: The process for requesting a product be added to the system does not notify the requester when or whether the product is ever added, ensuring that unless they are willing to re-search for those items daily, they will not be the first to post a review (a significant advantage). This is also compounded by search algorithm inadequacies."

See above. That's the part I'm talking about. The "system" is the CL, so while "it" may not notify anyone, "it" often does. Frankly, I doubt many reviewers "re-search for those items daily." In many cases, the added products just sit there. I'm sure there are some cases like those suggested, but I'd really need to have some proof of it being pervasive to think that this assertation is reflective. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BamBamBoy (talk • contribs) 21:09, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]