Talk:Consumer Action Group

This article (for the most part) complies with the wiki standard, and is clearly notable - there have been numerous press articles regarding the CAG and many national TV appearances. They have been on TV in Australia and in Hong Kong - I think the question of Notability has been answered.

There is no link to the site from here, which makes it unclear how this is an advertisement. This article was NOT written by any of the 'staff' of CAG (although it has been edited by such).

Members to CAG typically grow at around 100 (weekend) to 400 (weekdays) per day and continue to do so - on average days the main page recieves over one million hits. Where the 'sadly a dying forum' and 'poor reputation' comes from is anybody's guess ;-) Sour grapes perhaps?

Despite the claim in an older post and that there are 'very low visitors' and that the site recieves less than 250 visits per day, at the time of writing there are currently over 1000 people viewing it's forum. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.202.26.135 (talk • contribs) 15:14, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

• Hi, I'm really glad you've expanded the Consumer Action Group's article, but your style was more bullet-points than article. I've made a few slight changes to try to make it more in keeping with other articles in Wikipedia. Also, if you sign your comment just by adding four tildes (~~~~) it will make following conversations on these talk pages easier to follow (registering for a username makes it even easier) Identz 15:28, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for telling me how to sign ;-) I did it in that style as I didn't want it to look like an advertisement - which is what it started to look like (which it isn't). I am the admin of the CAG, but I didn't start the article - in fact, I have no idea who did, but have added updates to it as and when. Dchurch24 15:38, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Also, thanks for tidying it up a bit for me ;-) Dchurch24 15:42, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

It was I that started the article, I'm now just a mere user (former mod) of CAG, I think my name should ring a bell with you, DChurch. Thanks to both you and to Identz for tidying it up. Ukmonkey 21:26, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Edits made to this article

Is there a way to request that an article be locked? I'm fed up with having to undo rival site member's irrelevant graffiti. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.202.26.135 (talk) 16:35, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I have the article in my watchlist, and keep an eye on changes regularly, and amend if I deem necessary. Hopefully the discredited ex-staff member and her netfriends will soon become bored, as will CAG's currently member(s) who keeps trying to turn the article into a self-promotional page. Ukmonkey (talk) 22:02, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

The removal of usernames was quite right. The bit about the newsletter was quite right too - although there this will be resurrected in Jan 2008. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.69.218.216 (talk) 19:19, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Glad to heard about the newsletter. It's a real shame that this powerful medium was never utilised. I'll amend the article accordingly if this situ changes in the future. Ukmonkey (talk) 22:02, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Also, please sign your name with four tildas, without a space. Ukmonkey (talk) 22:02, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

this article is an advertisement

This article is an advertisement for a commercial website. It's not in keeping with the spirit of Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.151.122.131 (talk) 10:48, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

There is no link to the sites address, making it unclear how it is an advertisement. It does read somewhat like an advertisement I agree, however, it is not a profit-making, commercial site. It also abides by the wikipedia standards - i.e. notable (has appeared in the national media more than twice).

The Consumer Action Group is also 'third party verifiable' as can be seen from the links at the bottom of the article. Even if it were a commercial site, the page would still be valid.

Some of the citation neededs are a bit odd too - I'm not sure how to cite the popularity of the site without linking to either the site (where members who are visiting are visible) or by linking to the site stats that are private (google analytics). 194.202.26.135 (talk) 14:28, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism

Any chance we can make this page semi-protected? It's suffering from repeated, regular vandalism —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.11.19.16 (talk) 11:12, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

...and STILL is! Some people! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.202.26.157 (talk) 16:37, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism removed Amethyst1664 (talk) 16:04, 5 May 2009 (UTC) I suspect upon reading the last 2 sections it has been somewhat vandalised again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.168.69.116 (talk) 01:37, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism appears to be person(s) from an organisation called "1st Credit". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.202.26.157 (talk) 11:00, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Neutral Point of View

I'm pro the Consumer Action Group and think they do good work, but my first thought on reading the article was that it's not NPOV. Particularly the criticisms section, which seems to consist of reasons why criticism isn't valid. There have been criticisms of CAG by people like the British Bankers Association and, although you may disagree with them, they are notable and thus should be included. 91.84.13.71 (talk) 12:00, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

So, include them ;-) 194.202.26.157 (talk) 14:22, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Statistics

In order to avert an edit war concerning the statistics section, let's discuss the matter here. We have two editors who believe that the statistics aren't important or notable enough to include in the article, and one who does. Could each of us, and anyone else who wants to contribute, please provide a policy-based argument for the section's inclusion or exclusion? —Psychonaut (talk) 18:14, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

I was creating a similar discussion at the same time, so am moving my comment here. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:19, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

The self-sourced statistics provided in this section are in violation of WP:NOT#STATS, so should be removed unless we are provided with an independent source that provides some analysis or interpretation of these statistics. The fact that the section has been here for five years is immaterial - it simply means that nobody has noticed before that it should not be included. This is an encyclopedia, not a mirror of the CAG's web site. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:17, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

The statistics show the popularity of the site, how it has grown & still growing and in themselves fact. They are not in breach of WP:NOT#STATS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bowlarks (talk • contribs) 18:28, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

WP:NOT#STATS says, "articles should contain sufficient explanatory text to put statistics within the article in their proper context for a general reader". How does this section meet that requirement? And how do we know that the statistics are correct? We can't rely on self-reporting for such information. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:54, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

I would have thought that the heading "Site Statistics" would be self explanatory particularly as it refers to the membership numbers, threads & posts. As for being independently verifiable as far as I know there is no other site which has the capability to actually monitor all those figures especially membership numbers. As an aside CAG is registered with the Information Commissioners Office & as data controllers I would assume that the figures they publish would in fact be correct. Bowlarks (talk) 20:11, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't see what bearing ICO registration has on the publication of web forum statistics. As far as I can tell operators of web forums aren't required to register with the ICO, nor does the ICO have any remit or ability to punish such operators who post false statistics about their web forums. Anyway, I'll add my endorsement of User:Phil Bridger's analysis, and furthermore note that I haven't found any other Wikipedia article on a website which has a separate section for statistics. What makes CAG so special that this article must go against the structural norm? —Psychonaut (talk) 20:24, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

So because you cannot find another article which includes such statistics they should be precluded from any other? Bowlarks (talk) 20:33, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm putting forth their absence from similar articles as evidence (not conclusive proof, but evidence) that they're not considered notable or verifiable in general. There's also something to be said for stylistic consistency; this is why we have an official manual of style. Could you please explain again why it's a good idea to put the statistics in this article? Your previous explanation (that they show the site's growth) makes no sense whatsoever, since the numbers as presented don't show any change over time. —Psychonaut (talk) 20:39, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

It does show the change over time, the History section states the sites original membership numbers & the Site Statistics shows how the group has grown from a membership of 200 since it's inception to around 340K now. Bowlarks (talk) 20:48, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

If growth is the point you're trying to make then you shouldn't put the two pieces of information necessary to demonstrate this at opposite ends of the article. Why not have a single, appropriately cited sentence which says that the project started off with 200 members and now boasts nearly 340,000? That makes the purpose of the statistics clear, and is also upfront about them being self-reported. I wouldn't object to including this in the article. —Psychonaut (talk) 20:55, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

So you would agree to something along the lines in the Popularity section to something along these lines?

"Since the inception of Bank Charges Hell (BCH), which started with 200+ members the site has developed into CAG which now boasts a membership of 340,000 which grows daily".

Then there would be no objection to the membership figure being updated monthly? Bowlarks (talk) 21:08, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

I object to "which grows daily". Pretty much any web forum which doesn't have a policy of deleting inactive and spam accounts "grows daily". I have no objection to the statistics section being deleted and that single sentence being inserted somewhere else in the article, minus the last three words, and with the addition of citations. With respect to continuously updating the membership figures, I think it's silly to do that on a fixed schedule. We're not CAG's publicity department. —Psychonaut (talk) 21:22, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Any citation http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/index.php would have to be from the CAG forum itself & although the CAG url has already been cited no doubt it would be seen as self advertising. As for CAG not deleting inactive accounts that is something which is extremely difficult to do because of the nature of the forum, Some members join because of a particular problem & may not return for a year or two until something else occurs. As for spam accounts they are deleted immediately along with their posts. In respect of updating the membership figures, as they grow by thousands monthly I feel it would give a more accurate reflection of its size. Bowlarks (talk) 21:34, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, some might see it as advertising. But given the way it's being presented in the proposed sentence, I don't think it's too objectionable, as the wording makes it clear that the figures are self-reported. (We do report self-reported membership figures for other organizations.) There's no rule here I know of against regularly updating figures in articles, so if this discussion results in them being kept in some form or another, then no one is stopping you from updating them every month. When I said that doing so was silly, it was only my opinion (though if that's all you use your Wikipedia account for, it will rather strongly mark you as a single-purpose account with a probable conflict of interest). —Psychonaut (talk) 21:53, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

I've edited the 'Popularity' section. Have we now come to some sort of consensus now? Bowlarks (talk) 22:04, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

The subject of this article is a website that lacks notability.92.238.55.212 (talk) 18:55, 15 June 2016 (UTC)