This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Reputation.com article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 21 July 2009 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep. |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
This article should be deleted, it is self promotional. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.173.108.154 ( talk) 23:11, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Excuse me, but The Consumerist is blacklisted? The Consumerist? That is more reliable than the press releases by this company! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.104.146.187 ( talk) 02:03, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
Seriously, Orlady, are you a shill for this company? The research placed in this last edit was multiple sourced, from unbiased sources. If Reputation Defender is paying you to keep negative information about them off of their Wiki page, you really should disclose that fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.104.146.187 ( talk) 05:05, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
Hello, my name is Rob Frappier. I work on behalf of ReputationDefender in the role of Community Manager. There are several neutral pieces of information about the company that would help expand the breadth of this Wikipedia entry. I understand and respect Wikipedia's provisions regarding conflict of interest, which is why I am starting a conversation on the discussion page. If a Wikipedia editor would be so kind, I would appreciate the opportunity to discuss some possible changes to this article that will provide additional information while maintaining its neutrality. Thank you. RobFrappier ( talk) 23:37, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
Last month, I requested the assistance of a Wikipedia editor to help flesh out this wiki with relevant and verifiable information. I have not heard from anyone since that time. Wikipedia's conflict of interest policies are an important part of the Wikipedia community, which is why I am again requesting assistance. If I do not hear from anyone again regarding edits, I will make the edits myself. Of course, I will only select neutral information that is verified by notable third-party news sources. Thank you. RobFrappier ( talk) 19:03, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
Hi Cliff. Thank you for acknowledging my note and offering guidance. As I wrote previously, I understand and respect Wikipedia's conflict of interest policies, and I am happy to work within those policies to improve this page. Below is a list of neutral content that I believe could help flesh out this wiki:
ReputationDefender Secures $8.65 Million in Series B Funding (Jan 2010) - http://techcrunch.com/2010/01/12/reputationdefender-kleiner-bessemer-8-65-million
ReputationDefender Secures $15 Million in Series C Funding (June 2010) - http://techcrunch.com/2010/06/22/online-privacy-startup-reputationdefender-raises-15-million/
ReputationDefender Acquires Professional Social Networking Website Ziggs.com (June 2010) - http://techcrunch.com/2010/06/08/reputationdefender-buys-ziggs-a-social-network-that-lets-you-market-yourself/
ReputationDefender Partners with Direct Marketing Association (Feb 2010) - http://www.marketwire.com/press-release/ReputationDefender-Partners-With-Direct-Marketing-Association-Enables-Customers-Choose-1188334.htm
Thank you again. RobFrappier ( talk) 19:47, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Hello. ReputationDefender is now officially Reputation.com. If an editor would please make the correction to this Wikipedia article, and consider including some of the neutral content I shared previously, I would greatly appreciate it. Thank you. RobFrappier ( talk) 01:24, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Why is it that the fact that Reputation.com, formerly known as reputation defender has been exposed as a scam and it was even stated so in this wiki article, and now it was removed? Does Wikipeia take money from businesses? They changed their name to avoid detection and are trying to whitewash it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.57.133.218 ( talk) 15:09, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
Why is it that when the fact that reputation defender is googled it autofills that it is a scam and their are numerous consumer complaints of fraud and proof that Reputation.com can not deliver on what they promise, and yet wikipedia censors out ANYTHING that makes reputation.com look bad? I wonder what else Wikipedia lies about in exchange for money huh? Maybe it's time for a grass roots movement to expose Jimmy the beggar Whales? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.57.133.218 ( talk • contribs) 15:04, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Search engine result tricks? Can you clarify? Reputation defender has many unhappy customers and the reason they changed their name is obvious. By the way, google will autofill what people type in.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.197.28.66 ( talk) 01:00, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
This company is a complete scam, and everyone knows it. And apparently Wiki is taking "donations" to allow their BS to continue. Apparently they dont have enough "donations" to convince google to remove all traces of their fraud from the internet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.197.125.131 ( talk) 10:18, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
The article is a "sales brouchure". If it were accompanied by details of how the company accomplishes their claims as well as a comparison to other companies in their industry; I'd find the article worthy of Wiki's standards. What is their market share? What is their corporate structure? Who do they compete with? What is a typical cunsumer experience? As it is, this is an abuse of the Wikipedia label.
Articles on web service companies are important to the Wiki readers, but this article fails the objectivity test. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vancraft ( talk • contribs) 17:33, 20 July 2011
I added the information about the company's second name change to ProfileDefenders (why keep changing?).
I hear their ads every morning on WCBS-AM New York, and I'm of the opinion that their service amounts to: 1) flooding the net with favorable information about companies in order to push unfavorable information about these firms off of most search results, and 2) threatening litigation against websites with unfavorable information in order to intimidate these sites into removing the information. I beleive these tactics natuarally extend to Wikipedia results. It will be instructive to see if this discussion remains unaltered, and if my contribution about the name change (very neutral edit) remains unchanged. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.46.131.247 ( talk) 01:22, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
It is my understanding one of the things Reputation.com does is edit articles here on Wikipedia to attempt to mitigate or remove adverse content. What is Wikipedia's policy regarding this sort of thing? Is there a procedure to follow if you suspect a particular editor is working in their employ to "spin" articles? Seems to me this could be a fairly serious issue affecting the integrity of Wikipedia articles. Snertking ( talk) 00:34, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
One of the best tools for a consumer are online product and media reviews. If one can hire this or similar companies to generate an avalanche of positive reviews to supplant legitimately unfavorable reviews, it removes value from any 1-5 star or text rating system. The only thing we the readers have going for us is that massively generated positives are easier to spot. Unrestrained use of superlatives, florid support for an obviously poor product, and generally going overboard on something that a normal person just wouldn't have the time to write, whether they liked the product or not. There is one legitimate action for getting items removed: reach out to the site admins. But by overwhelming the system with ---shall we say false positives?--- the same goal can be reached. Bury the unfavorable by artificially stuffing in the favorable. That's what Rep.com does. No denying there are noble uses for this service. But we are in an area where ethical guidelines do not exist. In initially sticking up for the little guys, positive comment generators like this have opened the door to companies who want lipstick on their pigs.
Jed 02:18, 27 October 2012 (UTC)Jed Fish GouldJed 02:18, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
The goal of protecting a person's online reputation is very noble but a moment of reflection tells you this is just hopeless on technical grounds. Indeed Michael Fertik's own book "The Wild West" does make the (obvious) case that the web is indeed a wild frontier and that is exactly the point. The wild west was never tamed by gunslingers like Wyatt Earp. It came gradually from civilized infrastructure. To protect a person's online involves some challenging technical proof of concepts that have yet to be established and needed to be established before the company even started. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.90.214.42 ( talk) 23:01, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
I think it's interesting that criticism of Reputation.com has been conveniently deleted from this page, and yet criticism of other websites/internet services are allowed to stay on their respective pages. I would like to know why Reputation.com is allowed a privilege not afforded to other web services. Do they donate to Wikipedia? Why are they so special, especially when legitimate criticism of the company exists? 129.79.70.161 ( talk) 20:43, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
I took a first pass at the article, making sure the sources directly supported the article-text, doing some research to fill in obvious gaps, and lots of trimming of primary sources, etc. Besides the mundane corporate history stuff (year founded, funding, growth, name-change), I think there are two big questions that are the most difficult to do fairly. (1) Is it ethical and/or good for society? The balance between free speech and a person's right to privacy, etc. etc. (we encounter the same balancing act on BLP pages) and (2) Is it effective? The answer is something along the lines of "it depends". CorporateM ( Talk) 00:28, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
An update on the company is needed here. Apparently Reputation.com is still NOT profitable. Also their initial director of engineering Tom Dignan subsequently demoted to R and D manager years ago finally left the company. Perhaps this site was premature? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.26.181.236 ( talk) 04:21, 24 April 2015 (UTC)