Talk:Yelp

Requested tweaks

Some comments/corrections from Yelp's legal department have been forwarded my way. I am storing them here for now until I can research each one in reliable sources and make any suggestions that seem appropriate. However, anyone else is welcome to go through them as well if you choose to, or wait for me. CorporateM (Talk) 23:58, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

1. Yelp was actually founded by an MRL Ventures affiliate, MRL Web, LLC, rather than MRL Ventures itself
2. Yelp's first iPhone app was released in 2008
3. Suggest changing "vet" to "vetenarian hospital"
4. An additional class-action lawsuit filed in San Francisco in March 2010 is missing
5. Should clarify that the lawsuits were consolidated before being dismissed as a group
6. They were dismissed based on the Federal Communications Decency Act (I think this is mentioned under "Controversy" and these two sections just need to be consolidated). Judge said the lawsuits were speculative.
7. It's stock was "Class A" common stock at IPO
8. Yelp stopped offering advertisers the "Favorite Review" option, to be more specific
9. Another lawsuit in 2011 was dismissed and they were made to pay Yelp's legal fees under anti-SLAPP laws.[1]

Sure, any of those that can be sourced. The anti-SLAPP decision is particularly interesting (that focus is more important than the fee award IMO). Anything material or potentially contentious (identity of founder possibly, another class action suit, class of stock) ought to just be left out per WP:OR if we can't find at least some sourcing for it. Incidentally, I'll revert this piece of unsourced commentary.[2] From experience, when brand new or anonymous editors makes a drive-by complaints like that it's pointless to engage; best to wait a day or so to make sure they've finished driving by before removing it. Wikidemon (talk) 19:52, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Wikidemon. I'll probably research the bullets this weekend at the latest. Consider me asking tepidly understanding WP:NORUSH, but if the first draft of the history is ready, do you think we can merge with article-space? It may not be "done" yet even in the near-term, but as Wikipedia is an indefinite work-in-progress... CorporateM (Talk) 22:01, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Suggesting a few tweaks to our first draft based on feedback from Yelp's legal department (see above):

• The iPhone app is mentioned in several other places, so it seems to make sense to add the date when it was first introduced. Suggest adding under History/Development something along the lines of: "In 2008, Yelp added new features for business owners to manage their listings,[25] and introduced its first iPhone app."

• Under the third paragraph of the Development section, suggest changing "vet" -> "veterinary hospital" to make it less ambiguous from war vets or the verb vet.

• Under the third paragraph after "joined the lawsuit the following month." would like to add a missing lawsuit: "A few weeks later, a San Francisco furniture store filed another complaint with the San Francisco Superior Court."

• In the fourth paragraph, suggest something like "The lawsuits were consolidated into a single class-action lawsuit that was dismissed by San Francisco U.S. District Judge Edward Chen. Chen ruled that Yelp's choices for which user reviews to display on the site are protected by the Communications Decency Act, a 1996 law that shields websites from being sued for publishing user-generated content." This is to merge the content under "Controversies" here; we should be able to eliminate the Controversies section after moving the last sentence of it somewhere else.

• A California court dismissed a case by a local dentist under anti-SLAPP laws, which protect communications that further discussions of public interest, and made the plaintiff pay Yelp's legal fees. I'm not attached, but I did notice the paying of fees was prominent in the source. Up to you Wikidemon.

• Under the fourth paragraph of Development, suggest changing "offering advertisers the ability to bring a positive review to the top position" -> "offering advertisers the 'Favorite Review' feature, which brings a positive..." Appears to be supported by the current sources and seems a valuable clarification to add the title of the feature.

I see from legal documents that come up in a Google search that MRL Web is likely the correct founder, but it's OR and Verification not Truth atm. I'll suggest they seek correction with Inc. or let it go. I think the section on the lawsuits may read defensively with these additions, though they also seem warranted. I'm leaning on impartial editors to keep us honest, but also think we may want revisit later to better summarize and re-write it, avoid UNDUE, etc.. Sincerely appreciative of your time reviewing our suggestions. CorporateM (Talk) 15:16, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

References

Second take at the controversy

I've taken a second cut at covering the lawsuits controversy based on some corrections/clarifications from the legal department, a more thoughtful approach to what information is notable enough for inclusion, and some copyedits to improve the editorial generally.

A few changes in the below proposed copy:

• I added information about the lawsuits being consolidated
• I consolidated the content currently under the Controversies/lawsuits section regarding the judge's ruling into this section
• I also added that in addition to the Communications Decency Act, the judge ruled that there was no evidence to support the allegations
• Notability alterations: I didn't include the dentist having to pay Yelp's legal fees, because it was not covered in as-prominent of sources (not at the WSJ, NYT level), trimmed content sourced to Forbes blogs (the last two sources in the current section) and local news (the new complaints in 2012)
• Copyedits and small trims throughout intended to make it more concise even with the additional content and improve the editorial generally.

Draft version

In February 2009, six small business owners interviewed by a Bay Area alternative weekly paper, East Bay Express, alleged that Yelp was offering to delete or move negative reviews if they purchased advertising. Some business owners believed Yelp employees were adding negative reviews to incentivize them to purchase products that would alter those reviews. Similar claims were made in a February 2010 lawsuit by a Los Angeles veterinary hospital, which was joined by nine additional businesses by mid-March. The lawsuits were consolidated into a single class-action lawsuit that was dismissed by San Francisco U.S. District Judge Edward Chen in October 2011. Chen ruled that Yelp's choices for which user reviews to display on the site are protected by the Communications Decency Act, a 1996 law that shields websites from being sued for publishing user-generated content. The judge said that the plaintiff, Wheel Techniques, did not provide any evidence that Yelp engaged in the alleged practices. Yelp claimed the lawsuits were based on confusion around its automated "review filter" software. In April 2010, Yelp stopped offering the "Favorite Review" option to advertisers, which previously allowed certain advertisers to highlight a review of their choice in the top position. Yelp also gave site users access to reviews that are suprressed by its filtering software.

It's a bit of a sensitive topic that is difficult for a company to contribute to neutrally and prone to some COI criticisms, so I defer to impartial Wikipedians on the best way to handle it. CorporateM (Talk) 18:41, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Controversey clean up part I

At first glance it looks to me like we need to combine content in the history/development section and the Reception section with content in the Controversies section (and new content from your proposed draft), yes? As we already have duplicate content in different sections and undue weight. Has this been discused?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 22:41, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

I also don't feel that we need a controversy section when we already have a Reception section.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 22:47, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

That seems like an ok place to start.

The overall structure hasn't been discussed yet, but in general I think there are far too many sub-sections and many of the section-titles are not neutral. Eventually I'd like to get to something like:

• History
• Features
• Reviews
• Community
• Business and advertising (maybe)

In this case, I would suggest the Lawsuits sub-section be merged with History and the issue of lawsuits filed by business owners against reviewers would eventually go into a Reviews section. CorporateM (Talk) 00:04, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

OK, I"m going to work on consolidating the legal issues from 2010 and 2011 and eliminating the Controversy section title. Once that is done we'll see what we have and what is missing and what needs to be added. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:49, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! We can take it one item at a time per usual. Appreciate your time. CorporateM (Talk) 21:30, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

I've done some consolidating and changed some section titles and removed duplicate content (ie the same lawsuit or event being discussed twice). The reception section is somewhat organized (now) by chronology. Tomorrow I will begin looking at the existing sources for the Reception section and will check to make sure that each source is being represented in a neutral, summary style and I'll make further edits as needed. After that I will begin looking at your draft to see what we might incorporate to further augment the section. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:46, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! I will patiently wait for your edits. It's always great to get a second pair of eyes to give the article a fresh take. CorporateM (Talk) 21:46, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Controversy clean up part II

Before looking at your proposed version I went through all the sources --except this one: West, Jackson (March 1, 2010). "Yelp Blames Greedy Lawyers for Extortion Allegations". BusinessWeek. Retrieved January 6, 2013. Do you have access to it? Anyway, I found and corrected inaccuracies and misrepresentations and summarized as neutrally as I could. I also deleted primary sources and original research and parked coatrack-ish content here at the talk page. Any comments before I look at your draft?

PS I rarely favor a controversy section but in this case because the issue is regarding the same related set of topics and parties over an extended period of time, I think in this instance, the term is appropriate. Cheers! -- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:11, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

I've also asked Wikidemon to give feedback and suggestions. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:25, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

My notes at a glance:

The BW article can be found here. Though it's just an editorial nit, the overuse of quotes jump out at me, in particular in the second sentence.

I don't see any reasonable argument to use a Forbes blog as a credible source for a high profile controversy. Since the author's semiconductor expertise is not related to the subject-matter, it's basically a personal blog. As a PR person, I have obtained guest blogs on Forbes for clients and ghost-written the content myself. There is no editorial control that would meet our criteria for being reliable, especially for such a topic.

I am both stunned and slightly humored that you would use the same argument for creating a Controversy section that I used on the PRSA article, where you were the one that shot me down!! And we both know that there is always temptation to create one, but we also know where consensus lies. OTOH if you create a sub-section under History, while editors may naturally have different opinions, it would not be so out-of-field for me to have a rightful place to complain.

Some of the content now in this section doesn't seem relevant at all. For example, placing the university study in this section makes it seem like they are related and gives the study a negative connotation. This probably belongs in a Reviews section.CorporateM (Talk) 21:51, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Sections with names like just "Controversies" should be avoided. They become coatracks and POV magnets to tilt the article, and that is not a good classification for information. IMO controversies should be covered with more specific titles, or in sections that are on the subject of the controversy. North8000 (talk) 19:13, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks folks, good comments!

The excessive quoting is because I have been accused of copy vio violations more than once and so anytime I use a phrase, even of 2-3 words, from a source I use quotes. Not because I feel they are needed but because I need to extra careful in that regard. I am fine with others summarizing them or removing the quotes if they like.

I agree with you on the Forbes source and if other editors don't object, I'd be inclined to remove it.

Also agree with you on the "study" by economists. Its related but only in a coatrackish kind of way. It could be moved or taken out depending on what other editors think.

Lastly, now after re-reading the section, I think its categorization as a controversy is borderline and a case could be made either way.User: North8000, should it be changed to Reception? or should the material be integrated into the History section or other appropriate areas? I'd also be interested in User:Wikidemon's comments, as I've asked him to also look at the article and give feedback. Thanks to all! -- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:49, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Just clarifying, I was arguing against having a general "Controversy" section, not against using the word "controversy" in the title. My recommendation would be to name that section by what's in it. If that name includes the word "controversy" that's fine. If I get a good idea for a title I might try it on a BRD basis. North8000 (talk) 11:37, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

BTW, 90% of that section is about 2 different but overlapping topics. "Pay to play" allegations against Yelp, and their efforts to uncover purchased reviews. The others (the defamation lawsuit by a supplier against a reviewer,and the correlation between good reviews and business) are unrelated and IMO should get moved. North8000 (talk) 11:48, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

I made a try at it. Feel free to undo, revise etc. North8000 (talk) 12:19, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

What about starting a section called "Reviews." I don't see us being able to fill section just about the impact of the reviews, but a general Reviews section can include how many reviews are on the site, average ratings, disputes over the reviews, their impact on businesses, etc. CorporateM (Talk) 12:23, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Good comments and feedback everyone. Here are my responses:

• There was a fair amount of dup content in the article and similar issues being spread around here and there. So I organize related topics by chronology. Now I/we see that chrono is not the best way to organize and some items need to be sorted in other ways and move to other sections. I agree.
• North, good point about making the section title topic specific. I find the word "reviews" to be too general and the section is primarily about the 'pay to play' issue, so I've tweaked your proposed title. Feel free to revert or change if you object.
• I moved the bit about the defamation lawsuit to the History section as I don't feel it needs a special section AND I"m inclined to remove it from the article altogether as its coatrack-ish. Any thoughts?
• I like that North has moved the "study" by the economists but its likely when we examine the Products section it will need reconsideration. But for now at least its out of the Controversy section.

-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:27, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Everything I did was just an attempt to help and move it forward. I haven't the slightest problem with anybody changing or reverting what I did. We seem to think alike:

• On your second point, I almost put "pay to play" in the title. I didn't because I wasn't sure the California case could be called that.
• My thoughts were exactly the same as yours on every point regarding the defamation lawsuit. I didn't feel bold enough to delete it, and I only made a separate section for lack of a better idea.

Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 02:05, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks North, I'm glad you didn't put "pay to play" as its a bit of a colloquialism and some (especially non-Americans) may not understand it. So in general I think everything is good. I'll wait a day to see if Wikidemon has any comments and then begin working on the Products and Services section. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 14:57, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

PS Does anyone have access to this subscription only source? [3] (cite #88) -- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:17, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Lead tag

I have tagged the lead as it does not adequately summarize the article and it contains statistics and details that are not appropriate for a brief summary. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 22:41, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

draft

Yelp, Inc. is an American internet company that operates the social local review site Yelp.com. The company was founded by Jeremy Stoppelman, Russel Simmons, and Geoff Donaker in October 2004. Yelp, Inc. earns revenue by selling advertising to local businesses. Yelp launched from a business incubator, MRL Ventures, in 2004. Max Levchin invested $1 million in the project where users could ask their friends for recommendations on local services via email. The site didn't attract significant traffic and was relaunched in February 2005 with a greater focus on the write-a-review feature. Between 2005 and 2010, Yelp, Inc. received $130 million in funding from Bessemer Venture Partners, Benchmark Capital, DAG Ventures, and Elevation Partners. Yelp, Inc.'s IPO was on March 2, 2012 with a share price of $15 and a valuation of $898 million. Yelp.com had a valuation of $2.6 billion as of July 2013. Yelp allows users to search for businesses using an address or ZIP code. Users and business owners can update listing information on the site. Advertisers receive preferred search result placement and extra listing features, such as the ability to include an individualized message, video, and photo slide show onto the web page for its listing and receive reports on listing traffic. Yelp includes social features to encourage a sense of community and motivate contributors to provide better content. Yelp also organizes events at nightclubs, bars, restaurants, and cultural venues for its "Elite" members. Users can achieve "Elite" status by writing useful and entertaining reviews that gain the recognition of others. Between 2009 and 2010, several businesses accused Yelp of offering to suppress negative reviews if they purchased advertising. Co-founder and COO, Geoff Donaker, responded that advertisers and sales representatives don't have the ability to alter reviews. A class-action lawsuit was filed in 2010 accusing Yelp of offering to make listings appear more or less favorable depending on if the business purchased advertising. U.S. District Judge Edward M. Chen dismissed the lawsuit in 2011; he ruled that Yelp's choice of which reviews to display was protected under the Communications Decency Act. Yelp uses an algorithm to automatically filter inappropriate reviews, including positive reviews businesses pay users to write. A 2011 lawsuit challenging the filter was dismissed ⁂ Internet services and features Yelp.com had more than 100 million monthly unique visitors as of January 2013, up from 71 million in January 2012. ⁂ References

Is this at all acceptable? Pseudonymous Rex (talk) 05:11, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Nice work! I made some pretty small suggested copyedits above. It's a best practice to avoid citations in the lead, because it summarizes the article, which has citations in it. However, I didn't remove the cites in case some of them could be incorporated into the article.

A couple points that jump out at me in the controversy summary: One is that it wasn't two lawsuits that were dismissed in 2011, but a class action lawsuit that was a consolidation of legal complaints. The second is that the class action lawsuit is the most notable and basically the primary aspect of the controversy, while the 2012 allegations were only covered in a single local news outlet (that I know of) and basically amount to us listing every minor complaint. I would swap these (take out the less notable complaint from 2012 and add another sentence about the class-action lawsuit). CorporateM (Talk) 14:07, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

CorporateM, thank you. I made some changes to the last paragraph. The article says that there were two lawsuits dismissed in 2011. Hopefully the current draft is more clear. Keithbob, is this a suitable lead?

Also, the article mentions the "First to Review" reward system but doesn't explain what it is. I found a source that also mentions it but fails to describe the rewards. What is it? Pseudonymous Rex (talk) 00:27, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

CorporateM, saw your edit. Actually, I did mean charge, like to require payment. Is there a better way to word that? Pseudonymous Rex (talk) 00:49, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Oh my apologies. I only intended to make a copyedit and must have misread. It's getting late in my time zone. I did look it up while I was at it. The Wall Street Journal says "alleged Yelp threatened to degrade their ratings if they didn't advertise on the site" while East Bay Express said "promised to move or remove negative reviews if their business would advertise." These are both sort of opposite accusations (one being to alter reviews in their favor if they advertise and the other being to punish them if they don't). I would consider WSJ the more reliable, but the other alternative would be to find a more general way to describe it. It was never my intention to nit-pick though, but I think the accusation is that something was implied, rather than billed/charged as a service.

BTW - I found a few sources that mention the First to Review feature here, here and here, but the only reward mentioned is being "recognized". Also the third cite here has a list of reputation-based features and might have some stuff worth adding for the community section. Hope this helps. CorporateM (Talk) 01:26, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

I changed that sentence. Thank you for finding those sources. Pseudonymous Rex (talk) 05:17, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi Rex and thanks for creating a draft for the lead. My honest opinion is that the draft you have presented is too long and too detailed per WP:LEAD. The maximum length of a lead is four paragraphs. That would be a lead for an article like Google which is about 10,000 words long. This article should, in my opinion, have a lead that is one or two paragraphs long. On a side note there has been some discussion of moving the content in the so called "controversy" section and merging it with the history section or other appropriate sections. This was suggested by DGG. I am neutral on the idea and open to thoughts from others. Perhaps we could settle that issue first and then approach the lead once the body of the article has reached a stable state. Any thoughts on this approach? -- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:48, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

PS Here is a very full and comprehensive article that has gained WP highest status of Featured Article. Notice how the lead does not try to retell the entire article but rather summarizes in broad strokes, and invites the visitor to read further. The article is called: New Orleans Mint-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:14, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for replying. I'm sorry, I misunderstood and associated article length with article size. I'm not convinced, though, that there shouldn't be the separate section dealing with review reliability concerns. Pseudonymous Rex (talk) 20:30, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Throwing an idea out there. Since the section currently includes paid reviews as well and other topics, something like "Integrity of reviews" might be a good umbrella term for this section. Some of the "disputes" I've seen like this bring up issues related to the integrity of the review, but is not necessarily about whether the review is legitimate.

This is similar to how we've created Reliability of Wikipedia and as a crowd-sourced website, many of the issues are similar. I noticed that article has a section dedicated to "incidents" (synonymous with "disputes" essentially) and if we created an Integrity of Yelp reviews page a lot of the content we've removed about individual incidents that are UNDUE here may be well-placed there. I like to think anything that is properly sourced should have a place on Wikipedia somewhere.

We could also better balance the accusations of Yelp's tampering with more information about the site's policies, individual incidents, how Yelp has pursued businesses posting fake reviews[4][5] and helped legitimate reviewers threatened by businesses they left negative reviews for.[6]

The available information on this topic is so vast, it would consume the entire article here and the Yelp page would become a host for a huge number of disputes over reviews on the site. This is just what came to mind (and I may be bias), so if you feel the current is perfect the way it is, don't let me hold things up. CorporateM (Talk) 21:41, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi Rex and CorpM, and thanks for your responses and opinions on the lead and the review section. I'd like to look at the Review section again in a day or two and then give my thoughts about whether I feel it should be moved or retitled etc. Meanwhile other editors are free to jump in on this and edit as they see fit.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 22:28, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. As a heads up, there has been an appeal of Chen's ruling and as a result many new sources have emerged, which I started collecting at the bottom of the Talk page, along with several other major news items. If Keithbob Rex, Wikidemon or anyone else has an interest in taking a thoughtful stab at updating it, that may prevent drive-by edits. OTOH, I don't see any reason to prevent other improvements to the page like the Lead until a "final decision" is reached on article-structure - the article should improve the normal incremental way and no decision will ever be final anyway. CorporateM (Talk) 23:00, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree that "Integrity of reviews" might be a better title for the section. I don't think, though, that the section would need to be spun off into its own article. — Pseudonymous Rex (talk) 07:18, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm doubtful of the need for a spinoff also. And yes, CM you are correct, the lead can be improved at anytime by anyone who feels to do it.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:30, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Yup, I wouldn't want my involvement to prevent normal bold and incremental editing is all.

Anyways, I took a crack at shortening the lead Pseudonymous provided above (drafted below). CorporateM (Talk) 21:28, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

draft

Yelp, Inc. is the company that operates the social local review site Yelp.com, which allows users to search for local businesses and find or publish reviews on their products and services. Yelp earns revenue by selling preferred search result placement and extra listing features to advertisers. The website includes social features to encourage a sense of community and motivate contributors to provide better content. Yelp was founded by Jeremy Stoppelman, Russel Simmons, and Geoff Donaker in October 2004 out of a business incubator, MRL Ventures. Initially it was an email-based recommendation site that wasn't very successful, until it was re-launched in 2005 based on the "Write a Review" feature where unsolicited reviews could be written and published. Between 2005 and 2010, Yelp, Inc. received $130 million in funding. Yelp, Inc. had an IPO on March 2, 2012 with an evaluation of $898 million. From 2008 on, some businesses began accusing Yelp of suppressing negative reviews if they purchased advertising or adding negative ones to coerce the business to purchase advertising. Yelp said the reviews were being modified by its automated review filter, intended to detect paid or self-written reviews. A resulting class-action lawsuit was dismissed in 2011, however an appeal is ongoing.

Parking removed content

Restraining order

The content below has been removed from the article as it is not about Yelp. If two men get in a fight over a Verizon cell phone and one is then arrested, should that story go in the article on Verizon? I think not, nor does this incident belong here in this article.

• On November 3, 2009, a Yelp user was confronted by the owner of a bookstore in San Francisco at his home. The user had posted a review criticizing the store and received a string of angry messages towards him, which he revealed through screenshots. The user called the police, who arrested the bookstore owner, and obtained a restraining order.
• -- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:16, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

I feel the same way about the Facebook Beacon Integration section. More relevant to FB than Yelp... I do get the feeling that conflicts between reviewers and business owners arise generally and if there is a source that discusses how this effects Yelp, there may be appropriate content later on. CorporateM (Talk) 18:26, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, if there is a source that summarizes the effect of Yelp on customer-owner relations, that might be appropriate, but the reporting of an individuals crime against another person has no direct relationship to Yelp. I think the Products and Services section needs some work including the FB integration section but we'll get to that later. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:49, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Yup. Thanks. If there is a specific area you would like me to work-on/provide support for next, let me know. Otherwise I'll just circle back in a few days and look at what it still needs for a GAN. I know the lead needs expanding, but we can do that last of course per usual. CorporateM (Talk) 19:00, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Graham Elliot

The content below was removed as it gives undue weight to a personal testimony, one of many reported in multiple news reports. There is no reason to single this one out and give it undue weight.

• In July 2010, American chef Graham Elliot's sandwich shop Grahamwich had already received a negative one-star-review from a user complaining that the not-yet-opened restaurant had ruined his "pleasant walk". Elliot commented that this made him "question the legitimacy of the reviews involving businesses that are in actual operation." Elliot also said he had been "kicked off Yelp three times for responding to reviews that were just plain factually wrong."
• -- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:46, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

More coatrack content

• In December 2012, a Yelp web site user "facing a $750,000 defamation lawsuit" was "ordered to alter a negative Yelp review of a home contractor after police found that her claims didn’t add up."
• -- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:36, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Uncited text

• Listings and related content are organized by city and use a multi-tier categorization system. Content and listings can also be discovered through categorized reviews or via Yelp member profiles and their review lists. Maps leveraging Google Maps list reviewed businesses to further aid web site visitors.
• The above text can be readded when sources are found. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:55, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

I found a post on HowStuffWorks that looks like a great source for non-controversial information about the feature/functions of the site. Though you'll see it's described a bit differently than the content you're removing. Here is another one that covers some similar features regarding creating profiles, chatting in online forums, going to offline events and the integration with Facebook. It also talks about the business and advertising model, which may be helpful. CorporateM (Talk) 20:29, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Fresh string

Given the lengthy discussion on Talk, I thought I would archive some of the old stuff and start a new string requesting specific edits that I think there has already been agreement for:

• Removing the last sentence of the "2011 to present" section starting with "In December 2012, a Yelp web site user", since it does not involve Yelp and has been described as coatracky.
• Remove the sentence in the Controversy section that starts with "In August 2012 a Forbes contributor" since it is sourced to a personal blog
• The "pay for play" topic midway through the second paragraph of the Controversy section ("several companies were offering to pay people to publish positive reviews") is not related and should be moved (no clear consensus on where to move it to)
• A "Controversy" section attracts POV and coatrack material and is not in-line with community norms and should be renamed/moved.

If I am mis-stating, and there is not support/agreement for these edits, let me know. I also feel the Facebook Beacon Integration section is coatracky and unrelated to Yelp and the Controversy could use some trimming in general for UNDUE and general editorial purposes. It could be trimmed substantially without losing any important information for the reader. CorporateM (Talk) 16:04, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

OK I have enacted your suggestions #1, #2 and #4. Request #3 I'm not sure about so I've posted it below and asked for comments from others. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:44, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Sounds good. Also, a couple of remaining items from my original request:

• The current text doesn't explain that the lawsuits were "consolidated" and dismissed as a group, which makes it confusing, because a lot of lawsuits are discussed, but it only says that one was dismissed (they were consolidated then dismissed as a group). From this source: "consolidated into one potential class-action -- which Chen dismissed last year."
• The current text confirms that Yelp was protected by law, but doesn't also explain that the judge found no evidence that the speculations were true. According to the judge: "The company offered no evidence that Yelp engaged in that practice in this case or any other case."(source) I thought it was important to clarify that not only was Yelp protected by law, but there was not even any evidence to support the speculations.

CorporateM (Talk) 21:15, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Proposed removal

CorporateM has proposed that the content below be removed from the Reception/Controversy section. Any thoughts from others?

• ABC news reported that several companies were offering to pay people to publish positive reviews on the Yelp website and that "according to various online reports, as many as 30 percent of online reviews are fake."[96]
• -- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:44, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

"moved" as oppose to "removed". Just to another section. CorporateM (Talk) 20:46, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

OK< sorry I misrepresented you. What section do you suggest it be moved to? -- — Keithbob • Talk • 22:00, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

I had suggested "Reviews" but if that is too vague as mentioned above, perhaps the current "Content" section would do. I won't micro-manage. In my opinion renaming Content -> Reviews would make it more specific and since the reviews are not sold (by Yelp), it would be better to give it its own section rather than list it as part of the "Product." I also notice that the first sentence of the second paragraph of the Content section may actually be better under Community. CorporateM (Talk) 22:31, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Also, "Impact" could be consolidated with "Reviews" as well. I believe the Manual of Style advises against really small sections. CorporateM (Talk) 14:52, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Final section: Reception to reviews/controversy etc.

CorporateM asked me for an opinion.

I'd suggest the final section be expanded, and it doesn't matter where it's moved to or what it's called. I like the suggestion above somewhere that it be split up according to issue. As sections on companies coping with consumer complaints go, the present one is very restrained. We need to avoid an assortment of minor complaints, but we do need context. DGG ( talk ) 22:43, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Based on DGG's comment, what about doing something like this:

Content (section name)

Reviews (sub-section)

Impact (sub-section)

Manipulation (sub-section)

The "Manipulation" section would include both paid reviews and the allegations of Yelp manipulating reviews with the aim of reducing the emphasis on "an assortment of minor complaints" and providing more analysis and context. Alternatively, it could go under "Advertising."

Then the major historical item, the series of lawsuits that ended in a dismissed class-action, can go under History, while the Manipulation section can provide more general information on the issue. CorporateM (Talk) 00:06, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

My suggestion is to finish getting all the content in order. I've only taken a preliminary look, but IMO the Products section looks like it has issues. My inclination is to get the products section sorted out first as the section headings will likely change and then consider where the content in the Reception/Controversy section be moved, if at all. My initial goal was to combine all the stuff about the reviews controversy in one place to remove duplication and to get a handle on the scope of the overall issue. I'd like to do the same with products section and look at the History section too and see if it needs tweaking. That would be my approach and it will take time. Completely overhauling an existing article with 98 sources and collaborating with 2-3 other volunteer editors in different time zones through a type written conversation is awkward and slow, so patience is required. DGG's comments are good and will be given due consideration but they are also non-specific and further progress will require day to day discussion and decisions by whoever is available. So to summarize I'd like to leave the Reception section as is for now and begin pulling together the Products section. Comments?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:16, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable and I apologize for being impatient. It's a good thing you re-wrote the material, because it seems apparent that I may have been bias in my assessment of proper weight. However, there are two important clarifications I asked for about one month ago, and while the article has been re-written (for the better I think), the requests I made originally have still gone un-answered.

That is that the lawsuits were consolidated and dismissed as a group (without mentioning the consolidation, it's very confusing that there were so many lawsuits, but we only mention one being dismissed) and that the judge said Yelp was not only protected by law, but that there was no evidence the allegations were true (an important clarification since the reader may believe that they were actually tampering with reviews, but were merely protected by law).

CorporateM (Talk) 23:38, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I'd be happy to look at that for you. I assume you are talking about this text (below) which is currently in the article:

• In early 2010, a class-action lawsuit was filed against Yelp and alleged that it had attempted to force a Long Beach veterinary hospital into paying $300 a month "to suppress or delete reviews that disparaged the hospital."[84] The following month, nine additional businesses joined the lawsuit[85] and "two similar lawsuits" were filed.[86]
• In 2011, the class-action lawsuits were dismissed by San Francisco U.S. District Judge Edward Chen, who ruled that Yelp's choices for which user reviews to display on the site were protected by the Communications Decency Act, which protects Internet companies from liability concerns caused by user-generated content. [92][93]

Note: I cannot access cite #93 as its subscription only. How can I access this source? Are there other sources? If so, can you cite them here please? thanks, -- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:30, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes. Here are some sources:

• From MediaPost: "The lawsuits were later consolidated into one potential class-action -- which Chen dismissed last year."

• The San Francisco Chronicle: "Chen also rejected Wheel Techniques' allegation that Yelp, which says its reviews come from customers of each business, uses its own employees to write some of the assessments, a practice that would remove its immunity. The company offered no evidence that Yelp engaged in that practice in this case or any other case, the judge said"

Let me see if I can get the WSJ article and email it to you. CorporateM (Talk) 17:06, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

OK, I've made those additions using the sources you have provided and if you can e-mail me the other source that would be great. Shall we move onto the products section?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:44, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

PS this is how I like to work best. You say that something is missing or is be misrepresented in the article and provide sources. I then review the sources and add content using my own judgement based on my WP experience and interpretation of policy. Other editors may then review my work and make additional changes and/or engage in discussion with you or others as needed to further refine the content. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:50, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

History

I'm working my way through the History section, making copy edits and consolidating existing content. This paragraph (below), which references the aquisition bid by Google, from a TechCrunch article disturbs me because it is speculative. I would prefer to use this NY Times article from 10 months prior, which gives less info but which I feel is a higher quality source. Thoughts?

• According to TechCrunch "two sources close to the situation" reported that the two parties were close to agreeing on a $550 million deal but were interrupted by a counter-offer from Yahoo! for $750 million. According to the sources, Google refused to match Yahoo's offer and Yelp's management team and board of directors were split on the issue and neither deal was closed.

-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:50, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Per feedback from CorporateM I have gone ahead and revised the section cited above and incorporated the NYT source and moderated/summarized the section so it is less speculative.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:01, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Products and services

I've revamped that section too and move some things to History. Comments? Suggestions? -- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:32, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi Keithbob. I just gave it a once-over and made some very minor copyedits. A few other things I noticed at-a-glance

• "the write-a-review option[9][10]" <- could use an explanation of what this is
• "formed an elite group of super-users called" <- minor redundancy with "elite" and "super-user"
• I gleamed through this source but it does not appear to mention Yelp RE the Facebook Beacon program
• "The API allowed users to..." <- Just FYI, I did a few searches, but didn't find any sources
• The Google acquisition story does seem nebulous. Your NYT source is better.
• I would think the UC Berkeley story might be better somewhere else.
• Is this a typo? "Yelp provides biased local search capabilities for its website visitors"
• Local engine search <- The way it is now sort of makes it sound like a regular web search engine
• We could probably take the list of mobile devices out of quotes
• "Virtual Community" <- as this section discusses the in-person community aspects as well
• "Elite reviewer status...." There is more on this in secondary sources that has a very different tone than Yelp's material

I can circle back with some sources where needed. CorporateM (Talk) 20:19, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

OK I've looked at all the areas you highlighted above and made changes as appropriate. I feel the UC Berkeley story is OK where it is but I'm open to the views of others.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:49, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Reception to business reviews

After some time if I see that my reworking of the History and Products sections is more or less accepted and there is some consensus for the revised format, then I will consider moving some or all of the items in the reception section into History or Products as appropriate. Any thoughts on this?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:36, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

This editor is right that the original header was a bit vague and awkard, but the new one is not neutral. Not everything in the section is about litigation and "Criticisms" is an awfully one-sided way of describing it. Something like "Suspected Review Tampering" or "Integrity of Reviews" might be better. CorporateM (Talk) 22:38, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I didn't mean to come off as unneutral. I more carefully reread the section and think the current title, Disputes over legitimacy of reviews, is fine. Pseudonymous Rex (talk) 04:35, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi Kiethbob and other watchers. I was just noticing the fact that the judge found no evidence that Yelp was tampering with reviews was never added and was wondering if this was considered not a good edit or if it just slipped through the cracks.

• According to The Wall Street Journal: He [The Judge] wrote that the businesses did "not raise more than a mere possibility that Yelp has authored or manipulated content related to Plaintiffs in furtherance of an attempt to 'extort' advertising revenues."

• According to The San Francisco Chronicle: "Chen also rejected Wheel Techniques' allegation that Yelp, which says its reviews come from customers of each business, uses its own employees to write some of the assessments, a practice that would remove its immunity. The company offered no evidence that Yelp engaged in that practice in this case or any other case, the judge said.

• According to the Courthouse News Service: "But Chen found the class, which included Wheel Techniques, failed to support allegations that Yelp employees or people working on behalf of the company wrote business reviews or that Yelp paid users to write reviews. He also said Wheel Techniques couldn't prove Yelp helped create the negative content and therefore couldn't claim that it manipulated third-party reviews."

NPOV requires that we present "all significant views" and one of those views that are reported heavily in secondary sources are the views of the judge. We present a lot of information in this section about the accusations - it seems important to qualify that there was no evidence that any of the accusations were true. CorporateM (Talk) 05:18, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

I kinda like the suggestion made somewhere above to create a separate article that's a compendium of notable incidents of Yelp review lawsuits, shenanigans, and so on. There are similar articles for Facebook, Craigslist, and presumably others. The point is that these are encyclopedic events but it would overwhelm this article and create NPOV problems to list them all here. Even if many of them are ill-informed, without evidence, artifacts of misunderstanding the review process or trying to suppress information, or evidence of misbehavior by users and business establishments rather than Yelp itself, the very fact that there is mistrust and hostility towards reviews, and gaming them, is an interesting encyclopedic phenomenon, and a complete understanding of review sites and social networks by the reader should include a node to this. - Wikidemon (talk) 23:51, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Wikidemon, welcome back! I have mixed feelings about that proposal. Usually, articles are forked when they become too big not because of perceived issues of weight. [7] Any thoughts from others? -- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:17, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

New sources

I'm storing some of the latest sources as I notice them. CorporateM (Talk) 12:49, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

• Yelp is adding a feature that allows you to order food directly through Yelp

Grant, Rebecca (July 9, 2013). "Yelp launches Yelp Platform to enter world of on-demand delivery". VentureBeat.

Dickey, Megan (July 19, 2013). "Watch out seamless and GrubHub, Yelp's New Food Delivery Business is Eating Your Lunch". Business Insider.

• Yelp is making an acquisition of SeatMe so that restaurant reservations can be made directly through Yelp

Weber, Harrison (July 18, 2013). "Yelp acquires online reservation startup SeatMe to further its reach into local restaurants". Th Next Web.

Kumparak, Greg (July 18, 2013). "Yelp to acquire Online Reservation Service SeatMe for up to $12.7 million". TechCrunch. Retrieved July 26, 2013.

Lutz, Zachary (July 18, 2013). "Yelp gobbles up SeatMe, an emerging competitor to OpenTable". Engadget.

• The ruling has been appealed and there are some new sources that summarize the issues, various POVs, etc. Not sure if Motley Fool is considered reliable, but it's there.

"Will Yelp Inc (YELP)'s Business Model Get it in Trouble". The Motley Fool. July 23, 2013.

Zara, Christopher (July 12, 2013). "Yelp Extortion Rampant, Say Small-Business Owners As Class-Action Lawsuit Against Review 'Bully' Appealed". International Business Times.

Dumenco, Simon (July 12, 2013). "Is Yelp the Mafia? Well, Maybe not…". AdAge.

Allen, Sandra (June 28, 2013). "Is Yelp a Bully or Just Misunderstood". Buzzfeed.

Weitzenkorn, Ben (July 12, 2013). "Angry Business Owners Appeal Yelp over Alleged Extortion". Entrepreneur Magazine. Retrieved July 26, 2013.

Davis, Wendy (July 14, 2013). "Appeals Court Questions Merchants, Yelp in 'Payola Case'". Media Post. Retrieved July 26, 2013.

• Other "Integrity of reviews" issues

Tutle, Brad (July 23, 2013). "Alleged Fake Online Review Spammers Get Taken to Court". TIME. Retrieved July 29, 2013.

Tuttle, Brad (July 23, 2013). "The Yelp Conspiracy: How a Group of Businesses Conspired to Get Better Yelp Ratings". TIME. Retrieved July 28, 2013.

A Harvard study on the impact of reviews

"HBS Study Finds Positive Yelp Reviews Boost Business". Harvard. October 5, 2011. Retrieved July 29, 2013.

This has a great section about the reliability of reviews

Blanding, Michael (October 24, 2011). "The Yelp Factor: Are Consumer Reviews Good for Business?". Harvard. Retrieved July 29, 2013.

• A new "Wordmap" feature was introduced

Dewey, Caitlin (July 2, 2013). "New Yelp heat map highlights the cheapest, priciest and hipster-ext neighborhoods in D.C." The Washington Post.

LeJacq, Yannick (July 2, 2013). "Yelp's Word Map means never having to dine with hipsters again". NBC News.

• A story in Forbes about Yelp's international expansion. I researched the author - looks to be a journalist.

Kantrowitz, Alex (July 11, 2013). "Uncovering Yelp's Global Expansion Strategy with a stop in Istanbul".

• A review of Yelp for the Windows Phone in PC Magazine

Muchmore, Michael. "Yelp (for Windows Phone)". PC Magazine.

• This looks to be basically a primary source, but it looked potentially useful to cross-check the early history with.

• • Good, next week I'll start going through some of these and adding content as needed. Others are also welcome to join in as always.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:01, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Unsourced content removed

The content below has been removed. If reliable secondary sources can be found then some version of this info can be re-added depending on what the sources say.

• The 9th Circuit Court held a hearing for 3 judges regarding Judge Chen's dismissal and stated that Yelp had immunity for some things but not for other things (such as being the original writer of reviews). One Appeals Court judge stated that the dismissal might have been premature before discovery was permitted because the facts are important and in this matter the facts "are a moving target."
• -- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:59, 27 July 2013 (UTC)