Maps, Directions, and Place Reviews
Canadian
Perhaps this isn't the best location for this (feel free to remove if this is the case), but I'm looking for a Yelp alternative for Canadian cities. Any suggestions? Onishenko 03:22, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Bay Area Movers Yelp Video
site features
Under site features, I expanded the paragraph to include different modes of searching and browsing Yelp content. I also wanted to clarify "star ratings" and explain business-specific dossiers. I also added a section called "Demographics" to offer people an idea of one tracking firm's take on who visits Yelp. JonathanGCohen 16:02, 23 January 2008 (EST)
One sentence says "Yelp allows real people to contribute their own reviews." Isn't everyone a real person? Isn't this sentence redundant in already establishing that users can contribute reviews? 129.2.129.226 (talk) 06:25, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
It may be worthwhile to mention their mobile apps as part of the company's products, which has reached a good 10million installs (http://officialblog.yelp.com/2013/02/yelpcom-welcomes-100-million-unique-visitors-in-january-2013.html). Stoppleman also mentions he's trying to shift the company towards mobile (http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-57555084-93/yelp-ceo-yep-google-can-be-pretty-evil) badassdon (talk) 23:46, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
Avoiding spam, lists, and extraneous links
Please don't post links from the Wikipedia article about one company directly to the home page of another company. If you think it's useful to an understanding of Yelp to discuss how it compares or differs from other notable sites, you should add a "similar services" section and present a fair, balanced analysis of that. The links should be to the Wikipedia entries for other sites, not to the sites themselves. If you want to discuss web 2.0 and user review sites generally, go to the articles on those web trends. Wikipedia is not a business directory so it's a fruitless effort to try to list them all, but sometimes those articles do list examples. Finally, if there is another site that is your famous or is otherwise of interest, why not go to (or create) an article about that site and talk about it there?
For sure, don't use the Yelp article as a place to try to generate web traffic for a different site. Whether you're the site owner or just a fan that's Wikipedia:Spam. Thanks. Wikidemo 04:38, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
If someone can explain what, specifically looks like an "advertisement" I'll allow the tag to stay. As it is the tag just looks like an opinion that Wikipedia should not discuss website features and operation. That's very important to an encyclopedic understanding of social network services and the Web 2.0 industry. Nothing in the article is opinion, and certainly not "advertisement" - there's no promotion, no jingle, no solicitation to do anything. Tags like that are really unhelpful.
The excessive fact tagging is also unhelpful. I'm sure they can be cited, but it's a silly exercise. Am I supposed to find a cite that says that Yelp lists hours and parking information? I'm sure it's out there - there is reliable sourcing out there somewhere on just about every possible aspect of the site. But it's silly because these things are obviously true - just go the the site and see for yourself. Tags are supposed to be for legitimate questions of fact, not objection to the type of content that is being covered. Wikidemo (talk) 01:45, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Editing in progress to remove Advert
I reworked the first 3 sections of the Site Features section. Most likely controversial are the removal of the User Profiles section and a large removal in the Business Reviews section, both of which were dropped because they were more a discussion of the concepts than of any particular relevance to Yelp alone. Parts of the User Profiles section can and probably should be rescued (the Elite member concept) and placed into the User Generated Content section (to further point out the uniqueness of combining social networking with content contributions). The Business Reviews lines removed were pretty clearly a discussion of reviewing, not a discussion of Yelp (and the user reviews site concept is already discussed elsewhere. The Technical features discussion is up next, and needs to be converted to be less marketing description-like and more encyclopedic in tone, but I'm done for the night. -Gych (talk) 05:43, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Done
Main sections are fully edited. I believe I've worked back in any relevant information dropped from the 232621231 edit as well as added in the new data I found. I'll take another pass tomorrow (or soon anyway) to check language, grammar, and sentence structure. But feel free to edit at this point. For the most part, I'm done with these sections. If you're satisfied, remove the advert tag. -Gych (talk) 05:11, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Tag Removed
Removed advert tag after 5 days of no comments. -Gych (talk) 03:57, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Criticism
I'm not going to place my own judgments on the criticisms I've read, just planning to log them briefly as I've seen on many a business-focused page here on Wikipedia. The sources seem credible and non-trivial. My suggested text...
"Yelp has been criticized over the fairness of negative reviews on the site. Some business owners have even posted "No Yelpers" signs in frustration. Yelp defends its practices and states that it will not censor user comments. Criticism has also be levied by business owners who believe that the ordering of reviews is controlled and used to pressure businesses into advertising, with salespersons suggesting negative reviews can be placed last for a fee. Yelp rejects these charges and believes there is possibly confusion around the highlighted review offering."
Please suggest improved wording if you believe I have mistated the criticisms or Yelp responses. The section inclusion is common and fair.
- http://news.cnet.com/8301-10784_3-9759933-7.html?hhTest=1
- http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/08/13/yelp_sales_pitch/
- http://cbs5.com/wrapper_consumer/seenon/Yelp.Internet.ratings.2.787400.html
- http://www.yelp.com/topic/san-francisco-businesses-pay-for-different-sorting-of-review
-Gych (talk) 05:11, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Moved to main article page after lack of comment -Gych (talk) 03:56, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
I own big guys pizza, Pasta and sportsbar and it seems like Yelp has for some reason or another filtered 5 of my very positive reviews and allowed a review which had nothing to do with how the food was but a post in which what may have happened at the other end of the shopping center to be in the main area of my page, I frankly want all the reviews not filtered, good or bad or remove my establishment from Yelp's website. Ofcourse their is noway to really contact them either and this as well bothers me. so yes, any criticism towards yelp is certainly warranted. --Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.110.81.16 (talk) 23:31, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Criticism section error
The following line was recently added: "Yelp also removes negative comments for companies that pay a listing fee." and this statement is inaccurate please see:
- http://www.yelp.com/faq#removingReviews
I work for Yelp and do not want to violate any rules by touching this page myself, can someone independently verify? Aside from this disclosure on our site one can verify for themselves by finding a sponsor with negative reviews on their page. A search for burrito near sf showed me this sponsor
- http://www.yelp.com/biz/la-calaca-loca-oakland
On their page you'll find 2 star and 1 star reviews. Sponsors cannot remove negative reviews. Jstopp (talk) 06:45, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, appreciate the help. Jstopp (talk) 18:02, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
Hello,
The following line was recently added: "Yelp has also angered contributors by taking down negative reviews of businesses which are Yelp sponsors. Yelp's sponsor businesses can thus achieve artificially high scores." this statement is false and has no citation to back it up, therefore it should be removed.
I work for Yelp so I cannot touch the page myself, thanks for taking a look 65.87.22.62 (talk) 18:27, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
A growing number of small business owners claim that Yelp employees are writing bad reviews of their businesses, placing them in a conspicuous location at the top of the page, and charging them money to bury the reviews again. This has been corroborated by other Yelp employees and thoroughly documented in news articles (*http://www.eastbayexpress.com/ebx/yelp-and-the-business-of-extortion-20) and class action lawsuits. In any other setting, this would be called extortion. I don't see a section describing the practice of Yelp employees writing negative reviews themselves. I'd attempt a summary but I'm afraid I wouldn't be impartial enough. Ubruni (talk) 08:16, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
Beacon
Is the Beacon section really worth mentioning? -Gych (talk) 05:20, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
UK
The article should mention Yelp's expansion to the UK, if a citable source can be found. ike9898 (talk) 16:20, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
East Bay Express articles
I wrote a paragraph about some of the allegations in the East Bay Express, which was appropriately taken down due to POV and credibility concerns: (History diff)
Some of these allegations go beyond de-emphasizing negative reviews for Yelp's advertising clients. There were claims of both negative and positive reviews disappearing, as well as Yelp staff writing reviews. A nightclub owner says he was asked to provide free drinks and party space in exchange for favorable reviews. A Chicago art studio instructor who gave his name but not the name of his studio says that soon after turning down Yelp advertising, three positive reviews disappeared and two negative ones appeared. Of course he had no way of proving the new bad reviews were not legitimate, but the disappearance of positive reviews does not appear to have an explanation.
These irregularities are not mentioned in the criticisms section. I'm just passing through, so it'd be great if someone who hangs out on this page could address this stuff. Thanks. --Loqi (talk) 06:11, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
I want to reiterate that it comes across as suspicious that the criticism section is so brief. This actually hurts the company because people like me drifting through figure the article has been vandalized by Yelp. It's important to summarize the EBE piece and include Yelp's response. It's also important to include discussion of Yelpers being sued over reviews, along with Yelp's ever-vigilant response. Cutting these from the article just isn't credible. Any problems with adding? --Preceding unsigned comment added by Abc1812 (talk o contribs) 14:40, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Blackmail claims, again
A new WP:SPA has added three times a summary of claims of "blackmail" of local businesses by Yelp. Here is the latest revision[1] to the current version, which already represents a consensus on how much or little to raise regarding the rather unremarkable fact that a consumer web site has critics: Yelp has been criticized over the fairness of negative reviews on the site and for trying to squeeze advertising revenues from small businesses. Yelp states that it will not censor user comments, although it does remove favorable and unfavorable reviews that are considered "suspicious". Yelp has paid reviewers who disguise themselves as non biased reports. Many restaurants in the bay area have complained about being blackmailed to advertise or have bad reviews posted. Yelp sales people have called restaurants and told them that if they advertise negative reviews would disappear or move to the bottom. Dozens of documented instances where businesses have been targeted have been reported by local newspapers. Restaurants and other businesses that have declined to advertise have suddenly found dozens of negative reviews appear. Yelp's CEO Jeremy Stoppelman himself has posted over 860 reviews of businesses.
- on the site - sentence is awkward without this qualification
- and for trying to squeeze advertising revenues from small businesses - the existing citation does not support this claim, the informal colorful use of "squeeze" is unenncyclopedic, and it is implausible that a website that makes money through small business advertisements would be criticized for trying to obtain money from small businesses.
- Yelp has paid reviewers who disguise themselves as non biased reports. - ungrammatical. Not supported by existing source. Unlikely to be sourceable, inherently contentious so it would need an inline attribution of the claim. Unlikely to be true.
- Many restaurants in the bay area have complained about being blackmailed to advertise or have bad reviews posted.Unsourced and likely unsourceable and untrue. What the sources do say is that there were several examples they could find of establishment owners who claimed that Yelp sales representatives offered they could remove or de-prioritize negative reviews if they advertised, a claim that has some intuitive appeal but is readily explainable and has been explained.
- Yelp sales people have called restaurants and told them that if they advertise negative reviews would disappear or move to the bottom. This claim that has actually been made, although the proposal incorrectly (and in a biased way) endorses the claim as true. On balance it does not make much sense per WP:WEIGHT to report what looks like random conspiracy theorizing about the evils of businesses, as reported in a few minor sources. Any consumer web company is going to get trashed in the tech press, free weeklies, and scandal sheets, that's what they do. I don't think it's encyclopedic to add that stuff to all the business articles because that would turn Wikipedia into a scandal wiki. There has to be some threshold of credibility and importance to the claims.
- Dozens of documented instances where businesses have been targeted have been reported by local newspapers.No source has been offered for this, and it would be improper to use newspapers as WP:PSTS primary sources for assessing whether the newspapers have adequately documented their stories, or how many cases they report. A more neutral way to say this is that local newspapers occasionally run negative stories on Yelp, something that is unremarkable.
- Restaurants and other businesses that have declined to advertise have suddenly found dozens of negative reviews appear. No source offered, likely unsourceable and untrue. See note above about conspiracy theories. Even if it were worth reporting the theory it would be have to be reported as such, not endorsed as true.
- Yelp's CEO Jeremy Stoppelman himself has posted over 860 reviews of businesses.Likely true but unsourced. Without a secondary source this is just original research. The rule against OR is not just to ensure factual accuracy, but also to assess whether a fact is significant and relevant enough to include in the article. To my knowledge no reliable source has ever mentioned Stoppelman's review count in the context of a criticism of Yelp or in any other context, so using it here is just voicing the editor's opinion.
Also, the editor proposing this is a WP:SPA with no edits other than edit warring the article. Barring any surprises I'll probably remove the content again within several hours. - Wikidemon (talk) 03:04, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
I somewhat disagree While the user who is making those edits (WP:SPA) is clearly not going about it in the right way, the criticisms section of this article is not strong enough. There are just too many claims out there of people having positive reviews removed from their site if they don't pay yelp for there not to be some truth behind it. I'm new to wikipedia and I just learned about these Yelp scams a week ago. What kind of proof/sources do we need to find to get this added to the criticisms section?Truepusk (talk) 18:34, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Here is a source: But Yelp's policy is not to remove negative postings. "Instead they removed some positive postings. They refused to remove the bad posting, and then they called me to solicit a business account," said Kellinger. http://cbs5.com/consumer/Yelp.Internet.ratings.2.787400.htmlTruepusk (talk) 18:43, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
I agree. All I want to do is add to the criticisms that not only have numerous people claimed that Yelp calls them and offers to remove or hide negative reviews, but also will remove positive reviews if they do not pay. I know the wording needs to be worked on. And honestly, your comparison to craigslist, facebook, google, etc. - do a google search on the alleged scandals of those and see what comes up. Compare it to the google search of the Yelp scandals. You will see what I'm talking about. There is more than enough information out there to convince me that this rings true. It's just a matter of finding sources that you find appropriate.
The link I listed is a local CBS station. I would think that is more than mainstream enough to be appropriate. But I should probably find multiple. What do you think?Truepusk (talk) 19:12, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Criticism reworking
Yelp now filters all reviews unless you're a "trusted" user, which judging by the thirty or so I saw, means a "mega user" who pours themselves into the site, the criticism is thus outdated as no one can submit a review and have it be seen or factored in, it is hidden from sight even. I would suggest we update it, I don't know how critical people are of the new filtering, but at least we should update the current criticism to past tense? Revrant (talk) 00:18, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
yelp Extortions and lawsuits are all facts
is wikipedia also getting paid by yelp now? how is this not neutral, these are simple facts which you can verify by reading the following links.
Many business owners have reported that yelp sales representatives contacted them, told them that if they pay yelp monthly fees, yelp can hide and delete negative reviews. When business owners refuse to pay yelp any monthly fees, their good reviews got deleted or "filtered". For example, Texas-based Cavalli Pizza even wrote on their own facebook page:"YELP has been unfair and removed 24 reviews all of which were 4 and 5 stars. But they keep calling us to advertise, and told us it would get better if we advertised."
- Yelp Hit With Class Action Lawsuit For Running An "Extortion Scheme"
- yelp | Ripoff Report | Complaints Reviews Scams Lawsuits Frauds Reported
- Yelp will help you remove bad reviews...for a price.
- Yelp Accused of Five-Star Review Extortion
- Yelp Scam -- Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.19.47.3 (talk) 09:49, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
" Texas-based Cavalli Pizza even wrote on their own facebook page:", isn't that a fact? you can find it on their own facebook. they are certainly not related to yelp. of course, the facts can be added to the article. there was no mention about how yelp asking business to pay monthly fee in order to remove bad reviews for businesses. -- Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.19.32.249 (talk) 22:02, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
someone add this to the page's link. http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/02/yelp-sued-for-alleged-extortion -- Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.34.154.6 (talk) 22:06, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Criticism section is under-represented
I agree with the previous contributors who state that the criticism section of this article is under-represented. Yelp's practices have many people upset, so much so that an entire movement against Yelp is developing. You can find over 20 complaints posted by angry business owners just in the last month at a site called "Save Us From Yelp!" saveusfromyelp.com
I first became aware of Yelp when I posted a negative review of a record store I visited in Montreal, and Yelp.ca removed it - twice. (http://www.yelp.ca/biz/cheap-thrills-montreal) In fact it has been "filtered". To see it you have to click a hard to see link, then enter a harder to see captcha - obviously they don't want people to read the filtered reviews. Then I read the only remaining review, and it seems like something professionally done that you might find in a tourist brochure. I investigated a little further, and found that the same "reviewer" has posted dozens of glowing reviews for other Montreal businesses, mostly 5 stars and a few 4 stars. And just by coincidence, Yelp wants these same businesses to pay them for advertising sponsorship.
This wiki article on Yelp doesn't do enough to disclose the company's shady practices. I'm not aware of dozens of consumer complaints appearing on any website called Save Us From Facebook or Save Us From Google, nor of either of these companies getting sued for extortion. And by the way, I find it interesting that the individual who is trying to suppress these criticisms from appearing on the wiki page is from the same area, San Francisco, as where Yelp's head office is located. -- Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.131.95.14 (talk) 02:17, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
Number of employees
The number of employees is significantly higher than 150, and the citation for that claim is 4 years old. If someone finds a source with a more updated number, please fix!
RabbitSC (talk) 23:06, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
Incredibly Poorly Written
Except for some of the more highly technical articles on "Wikipedia," this has to be the absolutely WORST article I've ever seen; my teachers in the fourth, fifth and my Jr. HS English teacher would have all given this a big, fat "F" and deservedly so.
The person or person who wrote this incomprehensible nonsense obviously didn't do very well in English let alone take some clues from basic journalism; you start off with "who, what, where, when, how and sometimes WHY" WITH WHAT IS MOST IMPORTANT all in the lead; this lead explains NOTHING specifically about "Yelp" but it does go off on the tangent of what social media is.
If I were reviewing this article on "Yelp" I would rate it, at best, ONE STAR.
Satchmo Sings (talk) 12:50, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
Credible references needed to corroborate original research
I removed references that are self published blogs from personal websites. They're no different from citing something said by some guy on the street. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 02:31, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
4square
Isn't foursquare a related product in terms of general idea and purpose? shouldn't it be added to see also secton? -- Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.218.181.137 (talk) 19:20, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
History
Hi. I've been coaching Yelp through a draft of their history in a public relations capacity. I wanted to introduce myself to any Talk page watchlisters and see if anyone was interested in collaborating on the article with me. Our 56-citation draft History is a lot to go through all at once and it's difficult to compare the two versions, so I thought maybe it would be easier to go through it a couple paragraphs at a time? Let me know what works best! CorporateM (Talk) 01:19, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
Foundation
Below is a draft paragraph regarding how the company was founded and its early, unsuccessful project as an email-based referral site. A few notes with a focus on where my COI may be relevant:
- It has more detail on why/how it was unsuccessful instead of just "aborted": "After an aborted start as an email recommendation service" -> "The site didn't attract many readers or writers beyond the founders' friends and family and was difficult to use." + a screenshot to be added of the original failed service.
- Correction: David Galbraith isn't actually mentioned in the current citation[3], but the author of a GigaOm story says he is a cofounder - the author says: "if my memory serves me right."[4] I've replaced it in the draft with what I believe to be the company's story of origination according to much more reliable sources, like profiles in Fortune and Inc., about having trouble finding a local doctor and being funded to find an alternative to the Yellow Pages.
- Some general editorial improvements. I didn't feel Adzaar and Slide (not cited either) are relevant, though they may belong on an article about MRL Ventures if one was started. I condensed some of the details about funding.
Nothing too controversial - corrections, better sources and general editorial improvement. I trust Wikidemon and the community to keep us on the straight and narrow if anything I'm proposing is unfair or strays from the rules and extend my thanks in advance for the help! CorporateM (Talk) 13:12, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
- "at a ten-person incubator called MRL Ventures in 2004."
- (removing David Galbraith).
- "[after the doctor thing] he [Stoppelman] and Simmons started investigating modern alternatives to the Yellow Pages."
- (removing mention of Adzaar and Slide).
- "The site didn't attract many readers or writers beyond the founders' friends and family"
- "using one feature to write reviews without..."
- "Unsolicited review writing became the basis of..."
- (removing funding info and company growth)
Pending any additional comments from Wikidemon, I'd like to request consideration of the following two paragraphs regarding how Yelp was founded. A couple small notes; I did add "local" back in before "doctor", put the image back in, removed the two other MRL venture funds and might a tweak based on the discussion above RE Galbraith. The rest is just copy-editing and adding cites back in. However, if you feel strongly about the two venture funds or any other changes, please go ahead! I'll tee up the early history next. Thanks so much for your help! CorporateM (Talk) 19:00, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
Early history
Below is a draft of two additional paragraphs covering Yelp's early history, initial growth, funding and development. It buts up right against time period where several lawsuits and controversies ensue. CorporateM (Talk) 23:17, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
Okay, some thoughts.
- ..."elite parties"... I think this is important to mention but some more context would be helpful. First, the elite parties were sponsored by Yelp's paying customers and usually held at their places of business. Being elite meant other things beyond just parties. People got promotional goods, status, recognition. I'm struggling to find sources for this, but the whole model was innovative for its time, and influenced the sites that came after to similarly confer elite status level to their most influential customers, a confluence of influencer marketing and gamification.[5][6][7][8] There were other ways of spurring growth of course. Yelp worked extensively with local merchants to encourage them to tell their customers to sign up and review them. They got lots of free passes and coupons for movies, restaurants, shows, and gave them out. The "People Love Us on Yelp" stickers were phenomenally successful too.[9] I don't know when or how Yelp made the decision to monetize from local business sponsorships but that's been the dominant model, and most revenue growth comes from direct sales. As an organization, after the earliest days Yelp was basically a mass of direct salespeople with a thin management structure for community, tech, etc. That's what the business / trade press might cover, although the popular press covers mostly the phenomenon of the site and its public features and activities.
- I like the way the funding and growth is treated. If people want to know the exact source of funding they can read the linked articles. There would e no harm in spelling it out, but if so it should be comprehensive and not just mention one VC here and there. The growth stats for reviewers versus monthly visitors is incomplete and a little disjointed. It would be nice to find a growth trend or even graph for both that goes from start to finish. They probably exist somewhere.
- The way the sentence is worded makes it sound like the monocle version was the first version of the iPhone app, but they had an earlier version with fewer features. The most important thing is that it's widely considered the first ever augmented reality mobile app.[10] Most of the sources say that Robert Scoble discovered it, but chances are he was tipped off.
- Jeremy says he turned down google. Google says it called off negotiations because it didn't like the way Yelp was trying to negotiate by leaking things to the press. So there are conflicting accounts.[11] I'm not aware of any authoritative source on what really happened.
- FWIW Yelp has had an on-and-off relationship with Opentable, MenuPages, and other compatible services over the years. Another important feature to mention is Yelp Deals, in competition with Groupon. Even though Yelp's not a major player it's a solid part of the revenue model.[12]
- Wikidemon (talk) 19:48, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
Second draft (below) based on your feedback. I made a mental note to check back on some of the sources for a Community section later on and to see if Yelp has a growth chart we can use. I added the source for Deals to the full draft, though we haven't gotten to that part yet. I think everything else is in there, but let me know if I missed anything. The red text is new material. I also moved things around so it was by-topic (growth/funding/development) rather than strictly chronological. CorporateM (Talk) 02:17, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Controversy
Next up is a couple paragraphs on the controversy with East Bay Express. It wouldn't be honest to substantially expand the other areas without covering this topic too. On the other hand, I would like to ask we merge and condense the current Controversy section here, per WP:Criticism. Leaning on editors like Wikidemon a bit here to make sure we're being fair and honest. CorporateM (Talk) 03:22, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Recent history
Last one!! CorporateM (Talk) 20:06, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
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)
- Yelp was actually founded by an MRL Ventures affiliate, MRL Web, LLC, rather than MRL Ventures itself
- Yelp's first iPhone app was released in 2008
- Suggest changing "vet" to "vetenarian hospital"
- An additional class-action lawsuit filed in San Francisco in March 2010 is missing
- Should clarify that the lawsuits were consolidated before being dismissed as a group
- 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.
- It's stock was "Class A" common stock at IPO
- Yelp stopped offering advertisers the "Favorite Review" option, to be more specific
- Another lawsuit in 2011 was dismissed and they were made to pay Yelp's legal fees under anti-SLAPP laws.[19]
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
Source of the article : Wikipedia
EmoticonEmoticon