Talk:Yelp/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

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? [1] (cite #88) -- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:17, 1 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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[2][3] and helped legitimate reviewers threatened by businesses they left negative reviews for.[4]

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.

I made a few changes to the draft and added it to the article. — Pseudonymous Rex (talk) 04:53, 3 August 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. [5] Any thoughts from others? -- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:17, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

I think "Integrity of reviews" is neutral and more concisely describes the section. Are there any objections to changing it? — Pseudonymous Rex (talk) 04:59, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

No objections here. The section-title is still awkward and long and Kiethbob said he wants to keep a few different topics in this section that fit together nicely under that header.

I'd also be interested in any feedback on adding the judge's statement as mentioned above. The way I understand it, Yelp is only protected by the Communications Decency Act, because there is no evidence they were tampering with reviews. The Act only protects them from being liable for crowd-sourced content.

I believe the basis of the appeal is that they were not given enough time to find evidence. There is also a Harvard study mentioned here which found that Yelp reviews do not favor advertisers, at least on a broad basis that can be observed statistically. More examples of individual business ratings that changed after advertising was purchased, etc. are raised as counter-points and the arguments come full circle. CorporateM (Talk) 06:30, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

I see no reason to split the article or create a new sub-article. North8000 (talk) 13:06, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

On the overall topic of "paying affecting displayed reviews", I would not overemphasize the courtroom aspect. That is a narrower part of that question and "proving guilty of an offense in court" is a much higher standard, and failure to do so should not be positioned in the article as the "final finding" on "paying affects displayed reviews" topic. North8000 (talk) 13:15, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for answering. I find myself having a strong opinion here more so than usual and I figured un-answered requests are usually ignored because they are poor requests, but it helps to get a response. And there's lots of other areas of the article to work on where my COI is not as significant. CorporateM (Talk) 17:52, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

In this case, I would say that the legal finding is pretty important, as a negative. Other than anecdotes and Internet chatter there's never been any support for the rather extreme claim that Yelp was operating a scam. Conspiracy theories abound about many online services and generate buzz. Lest we become a compendium of conspiracy theories we need to be careful not just about weight, but about what's credible and what's encyclopedic coverage of the online industry. In this case, much of the relatively scant reliable sourcing on the subject is reporting on the cases, not reporting directly on Yelp and its business. The cases were touted as a demonstration that there was something real there, on a "where there's smoke there's fire" theory. The findings of those cases is basically that there's no smoke. It's relevant to coverage of the fact that people filed the cases. - Wikidemon (talk) 01:44, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Sorry I was so vague. I think in shorthand, one significant aspect is that there is a lack of trust in Yelp, with the concern being that paying for advertising affects /affected reviews getting displayed. A different story is legal charges alleging more severe acts. And the court case findings are roughly saying that the more severe charges are unproven. North8000 (talk) 02:23, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

I do generally agree that quoting court decisions verbatim without sourced context is usually unhelpful. - Wikidemon (talk) 03:26, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

I think the judge saying that the allegations were just based on speculation is relevant beyond a legal context. My suggestion would be for regular editors to hammer it out in article-space, while I focus on some more mundane topics, where my COI is less significant. There is a general concern about the reliability of Yelp's reviews - whether they accurately reflect the quality of the business, how many are fake, whether Yelp is tampering with them, etc. CorporateM (Talk) 03:47, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Note from IP

• • This comment was left on my talk page:
• Hi, The Yelp founders story does not reflect what is here: [6] the other sources for the founders story merely quote interviewees, whereas Gigaom is based on first hand knowledge. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.19.210.242 (talk) 13:26, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
  • -- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:33, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

The cited source is an opinion piece. I'm not sure its enough to include Mr. G as a co-founder. What do others think?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:10, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

What is the question? I'm pretty sure that Geoff Donaker is not a founder of Yelp as the term is commonly used with respect to startups, nor do he and Yelp consider him as such. He is a principal, and is often listed next to Jeremy Stoppelman among the key players. Regarding sources, Om Malik is a recognized expert in technology and technology startups, writing for his technology blog, so even if the piece contains some editorializing on other topics it is likely a reliable source with respect to the basic facts of the companies he is covering. This piece (one of many one could find) establishes only that Jeremy and Russ are founders, not that anyone else is not a founder. I'm not aware of any sources that say Geoff is a founder, but if they exist they are a tiny minority, and contradicted by the basic understanding of what a founder is. It's not exactly a term of art, but we should use it consistently when covering startups. Rather than getting hung up over labels, better to mention briefly who he is, when he joined, and what his role has been. - Wikidemon (talk) 21:28, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

I just gave the early history a quick read and have a couple unrelated comments. It's not clear what the "Real Reviews" feature is that the website was reformulated around. It should explain that this is where users can write reviews unsolicited, rather than responding to an inquiry. Also, quite a few sources talk about how the parties Yelp threw for reviewers led to its growth. I'd be curious if anyone knows when or why it was taken out.

According to this source:

To help get Yelp off the ground, the company hosted parties at trendy restaurants and clubs in the Bay Area. The events got people talking and, more important, spurred them to write reviews, which quickly built up the site’s content. By 2006 the site had spread to include Boston, Chicago, New York, Los Angeles and Seattle, populated by enthusiastic reviewers who dubbed themselves Yelpers.

And BusinessWeek:

Yelp has mastered the art of making the most of online excitement in an offline world. The business review site became a force in San Francisco because of the real-world scene that grew up around it. Yelp events became raucous parties. It made the site stickier because it became an integral part of many people's social life. Suddenly, sitting alone at a computer penning a 1,000-word essay on why you love your dry cleaner became a social experience.

I'm sure there's more sources on this as well. It's also now missing the part about Stoppelman's search for a local doctor. See the Wall Street Journal article Search for Doctor Leads to Yelp. This is one of the most famous aspects of the company's founding. CorporateM (Talk) 00:12, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

IMO these stories about lunch and asking a friend about a doctor are "human interest" fodder for newspapers and magazines and don't belong in an encyclopedia. Also it's backstory, and not particularly germane to the company and its evolution.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:06, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Jeremy Stoppelman

Hi All. I have put together a draft article on Yelp co-founder Jeremy Stoppelman and submitted it to Articles for Creation here with a COI disclosure at the top of my submission. I thought I would post a quick FYI here in case some of the editors that are active on this page are also interested in that article. Cheers. CorporateM (Talk) 22:58, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

user:Gaijin42 has moved it to article-space, though any input is of course still welcome. I believe it is neutral and well-sourced, but then user:wikidemon's subject-matter expertise has helped me avoid accidental COI edits in the past, where other sources existed and whatnot. CorporateM (Talk) 19:48, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I've done some pruning and started a few threads on the talk page.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 23:05, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Some details

I noticed a few things in this source that would be worth adding, mostly about mundane descriptions of how the site and its community works, features, advertising, etc. and took a quick shot of drafting some additions:

• "Local advertising is responsible for 70% of Yelp's revenue. 15 percent is from search and display ads from national advertisers."
• "Businesses can post photos and privately or publicly communicate with reviewers for free."
• "Each reviewer has a profile, which shares the number of reviews they've written and a list of recent reviews."
• "Prolific reviewers can be nominated by others or nominate themselves to join the "Elite Squad." Elite Squad members gain access to exclusive events and can display a member badge on their profile."
• There's also some stuff about corporate culture under the heading "Business casual" starting on page 19. I can take a stab at a draft if nobody else wants to.

The source:

• McNichol, Tom (Fall 2012). "Word on the Street" (PDF). NYSE Magazine. Retrieved August 6, 2013.

Are posts like this helpful? CorporateM (Talk) 23:16, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

I think we have to be careful about this kind of info in the article. The article is about the company, its not about all the minor developments in its web site. If a new web feature creates or signals a major change for the company --and its a notable event or development in the company's history or evolution-- then we can add that but I feel we should evaluate these sources and the info they contain in that context. I have not looked at this particular source y, but in general we should stick to the most notable and mainstream sources and keep the content focused on the company and mention the web site only in the context of its significance to the company. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:32, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

There is no article on Yelp.com and it's the norm to combine the article on the company and their product. I don't believe there is any requirement that we use "mainstream" sources. I'm also fairly confident most of this can be found in other sources. The Elite Squad is mentioned in a lot of press articles and so are the basics of how profiles work and what it displays. I usually try to give readers some sense of revenue breakdown when sources exist for it on articles about businesses. I don't think we need the best possible source to add something, and we can always use better sources if/when we find them. CorporateM (Talk) 22:39, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

I may be wrong but I think it is a generally accepted principle on WP that we use the highest quality sources for an article. Of course what is highest quality could be discussed and debated and "mainstream" would not always be synonymous with "highest quality". For example academic sources are highly regarded but may not be considered as mainstream as the NY Times. Regarding the web site, I see it as the main, and at this time, sole company product. But it is not synonymous with the company and should have an appropriate context in the article. So you are correct that "mainstream" is not a clear criteria. The % of revenue from advertising seems like a good factoid for the article but the other three items about web site improvements seem less appropriate to me. But as I have said several times, I'm just one editor and I'm open to the perspectives of other editors. ?For this reason, I've put a note on the wiki Project Business page to see if we can attract more editors.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:57, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

 Done I've added details from this source to the article. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:04, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

New sources

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

• Food delivery

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

Brustein, Joshua (August 7, 2013). "Seamless and the Online-Takeout Trend are Making Restaurants Queasy". BusinessWeek. Retrieved August 28, 2013.

 Done Hsu, Tiffany (July 9, 2013). "Yelp launches food delivery and pickup service". LA Times. Retrieved August 28, 2013.

• Acquisition of SeatMe

 Done Rey, Jason (July 18, 2013). "OpenTable's Yelp Partnership Not at Risk as Reviews Site Acquires SeatMe". All Things D. Retrieved August 28, 2013.

 Done Miot, Stephanie (July 19, 2013). "Yelp Buys Online Reservation Service SeatMe". PC Magazine. Retrieved August 28, 2013.

• Wordmap

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

• Integrity of reviews

• Tampering

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

 Done 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.

• Paid reviews

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.

 Done Brustein, Joshua (August 13, 2013). "Why Yelp Will Never be Rid of Phony Reviews". BusinessWeek.

Ungerleider, Neal (August 21, 2013). ""Why the f*** would I use Yelp?" Investor Bets $5,000 Yelp Will Fail". Fast Company.

• Accuracy/fairness/impact/filter/misc or multiple topics covered

 Done Chang, Andrea (August 21 2013). "Yelp gets an earful from L.A. business owners". LATimes. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

Luca, Michael (July 12, 2013), Fake It Till You Make It: Reputation, Competition, and Yelp Review Fraud (PDF), Harvard, retrieved August 21, 2013 {{citation}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

Chang, Andrea (August 21, 2013). "Tempers flare at Yelp's town hall for small business owners in L.A." LA Times.

• Expansion

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

• Reviews

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.

• Services and features

 Done McNichol, Tom (Fall 2012). "Word on the Street" (PDF). NYSE Magazine. Retrieved August 6, 2013.

• • 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)

• • • Cool. I've been adding a few more as I notice them. I've just been added to their internal distribution for media coverage, so next year-ish, I'll probably keeping a running tally of new press articles and submit an update for consideration once every 6-12 months or so. Also, I've asked them to provide the Harvard report mentioned here. I haven't had much communication with them since early June, so I don't have much to offer in the way of fact-checking or expert contributions, but I can help provide sources and whatnot in the same capacity as any non-expert editor. Thanks for your help! CorporateM (Talk) 01:22, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
      • Note: in the list of sources above (and below) I've been adding the {done} template to indicate that that source is now being cited in the article. It is not meant to indicate that they can't be cited by other editors for additional information contained in the source(s). From my end I've added what I found to be relevant but others may have different ideas and that's fine, so cite away. PS But please use the 'ref name= XYZ/' version of the citation already in the article. This will save you time and avoid multiple entries on the Ref List for the same source. thanks! -- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:55, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
      • OK, I've looked at all of the sources in this section and many I have used and marked with the {done} template. Many others I did not use because they either contained information already in the article or they gave excessive detail already summarized by info in the article. Others may disagree and want to add things and of course they are free to do so!-- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:06, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

More sources:

•  Done Reuters on acquisition of SeatMe in July 2013 [7]
• Finance profiles [8] [9]
• Self description [10]
•  Done Business Insider 8/23/13 [11]
•  Done LA Times 8/22/13 [12] [13]
•  Done Company profile at BusinessWeek [14]
• Fast Company 8/21/13 [15]
• Forbes on Mobile Reviews [16]
•  Done Business Week Aug 13, 2013 [17]
•  Done LA Times July 9, 2013 [18]
• -- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:28, 23 August 2013 (UTC)-- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:16, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

The first five sources are short articles by non-mainstream, online press about Yelp's ongoing development of its restaurant reservation features/acquisiations. Business Insider has won a minor award but in general these sources are unsubstantial. Some of the info contained in them is either "announcements" by the company or speculative editorializing from the news staff. So I'm inclined to set them aside for now and move on to the more substantial sources like LA Times, Reuters etc. PS I've started a sandbox in which to summarize and collect these sources [19] in case it serves as a useful reference. Cheers! -- — Keithbob • Talk • 23:01, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

This kind of logic is what concerns me. Sources like VentureBeat, TechCrunch and The Next Web are highly appropriate sources - exactly the sources we would expect for a one-time Silicon Valley internet startup. In fact, TechCrunch is already used throughout the article and a similar source - Giga Om - is used even though its statements differ from more mainstream sources. They're no New York Times, but in comparison, the controversy section includes a Forbes blog, a broken link and a local news article written by "staff".

It's possible I am just out-of-touch with our norms and/or have an extremely skewed point-of-view, and actually, LA Times or Reuters would be better sources, but any of them would be fine. But it's very odd to disqualify a source because it's "not mainstream". CorporateM (Talk) 21:59, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Sorry CM I didn't mean to imply I was disqualifying those sources, I'm just prioritizing my work and saying that I'm putting them aside for now because A) In terms of my time I want to give priority to the mainstream and widely accepted sources such as NYTimes which tend to give a broader and more comprehensive view and B) because a quick look at those sources tells me they have a narrow focus and in some cases are speculative. But I plan to come back to them later and that's why I've taken the time to outline them in my sandbox. Re: Forbes blog.......... I am generally not fond of the way blogs published by Forbes have been used in some instances on WP. Because Forbes is such a famous name these opinion pieces are being used without attribution and are sometimes given undue weight. These "editorials" appear to have little oversight by Forbes editorial staff and are sometimes written by individuals with a strong negative POV on that particular topic. So that source and its usage could be up for discussion in future, IMO.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:28, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Stoppelman's search for a local doctor

I would like to seek additional input on whether the story of Yelp's founding should include co-founder Jeremy Stoppelman's search for a local doctor, which is how the idea for Yelp came about. There may be more sources available, but these are the ones I found poking around a bit:

• Search for Doctor Leads to Yelp, The Wall Street Journal
• Yelp Co-Founder Jeremy Stoppelman on Innovating and Staying Relevant http://www.entrepreneur.com/blog/224338#ixzz2cp3KabtG, Entrepreneur
• Business paradigm shifts and free tequila shots, Fortune
• Rave Reviews, New York Stock Exchange Magazine

Hopefully I am accurately representing Keithbob's point-of-view when I say that he believes this is too "human interest" and the sources are the type of infotainment we tend to avoid. On the other hand, I would include how the idea for a company came about in any article about an organization when this information is available in the source material, and especially when it's in the headline of the Wall Street Journal.

Keithbob and I have worked together on quite a few articles and I always value his feedback. On this page, he has been rejecting almost all my suggestions. This means that either I am making poor suggestions, or there is too much defensiveness on account of my COI. If it is the former, I will make an effort to make better suggestions. Respectfully, CorporateM (Talk) 19:46, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

It's obviously relevant, and noteworthy. I'm too lazy to check the edit history, but AFAIK this was in the article long before your involvement. Many sources that talk about the origins of Yelp mention this story. I'm skeptical about whether the story is true, as a great number of corporate CEO creation myths are made up, even if seemingly reliably sourced. - Wikidemon (talk) 21:57, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused by this RfC. Yesterday I made this comment here at talk:

IMO these stories about lunch and asking a friend about a doctor are "human interest" fodder for newspapers and magazines and don't belong in an encyclopedia. Also it's backstory, and not particularly germane to the company and its evolution.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:06, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

But the only response to that comment, so far, is this RfC.

In addition I also made this edit yesterday [20] removing the phrase "After a lunch meeting between Levchin, Jeremy Stoppleman and Russel Simmons,"

What I object to in general, is undue weight being given to the stories surrounding the founding of the company. That would include the search for a doctor through friends and the lunch meeting where the idea for the Yelp website was first conceived. I think its worth a succinct one time mention, but no more. What do others think?.

-- — Keithbob • Talk • 13:57, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Old version on June 6, 2013

Yelp was started out of MRL Ventures, an incubator Max Levchin and several former PayPal executives founded to develop Levchin's investment projects.[8] In late 2004, Levchin brought up the topic of Yellow Pages, which had been worked on since the incubator was started, with Jeremy Stoppelman and Russel Simmons. The two brainstormed over lunch about Jeremy's difficulty using the internet to find a local doctor, then pitched Levchin shortly after on building a site where users could ask friends for recommendations for local services by email.[8][9][10] That day Levchin agreed to invest $1 million in the project.[8] MRL co-founder, David Galbraith, who had instigated the research into a Yellow Pages product, came up with the name "Yelp."[11]

Current version as of August 24, 2013

Yelp Inc. developed out of a business incubator called MRL Ventures that was founded by Max Levchin and several former PayPal executives.[3] Stoppleman proposed a web site where users could ask friends for their recommendations on local services via email[3][4][5] and Levchin agreed to invest $1 million in the project.[3] MRL co-founder, David Galbraith, who had instigated the research into a Yellow Pages style Internet product, came up with the name "Yelp",[6] and the project was launched in 2004.[3]

-- — Keithbob • Talk • 14:06, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

The lunch is also discussed in substantial depth in this Inc. profile, though Wikidemon and I had previously discussed that Inc has a somewhat sensational version of it and many sources conflict on the details.

My concern is as follows: for a while now I have made many suggestions on the Talk page that I felt were neutral and properly sourced and in some cases felt they were obvious improvements. And increasingly so you have voiced opposition to all my suggestions. In theory, other editors will disagree and there would be a thoughtful discussion on it and bold editing, but in practice it has the unintentional effect of preventing me from contributing at all, due to various community dynamics.

I picked this issue to focus the RfC on, but it could just as well have been my request to add more information on how the website works or something else. My hope is by running an RfC we can get some perspective that may foster a more productive collaboration in the future and it's entirely possible I am just making poor suggestions. Hopefully RfC participants will stick around as well.

I would imagine a brief mention is all that's needed, since there is not much to explain beyond the idea being conceived based on a search for a local doctor. CorporateM (Talk) 16:48, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi CM, my apologies if my prior posts sounded off putting. I understand your frustration. I am feeling some myself. This is a common situation that arises when there are only two editors on a page. Maybe this RfC will attract some fresh editors and make the dynamic more enjoyable and productive for everyone. Cheers my friend! -- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:46, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

• Comment - I was invited here randomly by RFCBot. I am impressed by this article's non-promotional style and its encyclopedic approach to the subject. I assume this is due to reliance on sources other than company publications and possibly the lack of editorial participation by anyone directly involved in the business. I appreciate the factual delivery and lack of attempts to shine light on the accomplishments and personalities of the principals that often accompanies articles about businesses. In my experience this is unusual and I commend those involved for their good work. I think we should keep the narrative to a minimum in explaining how the company was started. Jojalozzo 18:33, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
• Comment - I agree with Jojalozzo on the quality of this article, as well as his stance on the narrative part concerning the foundation of the company. My congratulations to all those involved on writing a very comprehensive article! Mathijsvs (talk) 14:23, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
• Comment - I also was invited here randomly by RFCBot. I agree with both previous statements.Fox1942 (talk) 09:46, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

It seems I owe Keithbob an apology, because I thought it was something that obviously needed to be included, given its prominence in the source material, but consensus turned out to be quite the opposite. I've closed the RfC. Sorry for raising a fuss buddy. CorporateM (Talk) 13:29, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

No worries, it never hurts to get outside input. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:47, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Parking text and sources

• Several competitors who emulated Yelp's concepts have failed or were acquired.
• ref name="TechCrunch1">Calley Nye (July 2, 2008). "Angry Businesses Organize Anti-Yelp Websites. This Is A Sure Sign Of Their Success". TechCrunch.
• Michael Arrington (October 23, 2007). "Judy's Book To Shut Down. Yelp Is The Last of The Local Review Sites Still Standing". TechCrunch.
• Matt Marshall (February 27, 2008). "(Dead link) Citysearch snaps up Insider Pages in local search race". VentureBeat.

I have removed the above. I think it borders on original research and is a bit off topic. I'm not sure evaluations about other companies is appropriate in this article. If other disagree it can be replaced in the article. If that happens I would at least like to qualify the statement by attributing the sources and saying when they reported this conclusion.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:54, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

• The company began adding restaurant hygiene inspection scores from the health departments of New York and San Francisco to its restaurant listings on its web site.
  • Bindley, Katherine (January 17, 2013). "Yelp Adds Health Department Grades to Restaurant Listings". The Huffington Post. Retrieved February 14, 2013.

Have also removed the above, I don't feel that a minor change in the company's product/website reported by Huff Po is notable enough for the article. If others disagree or if this change is reported in other reliable sources, then we can consider it for re-inclusion.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:01, 13 September 2013 (UTC) PS I've re-added a brief mention of this here.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:18, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree: it's a minor addition, but an important one and it at least deserves a short mention. Keep up the good work! Mathijsvs (talk) 10:58, 22 September 2013 (UTC)