Talk:EverQuote

Disruptive Innovation

Why is the article for Disruptive Innovation linked in this page? Their advertisements feature the term "disruptive" often but that doesn't mean that there is a strong enough link for it to be on their Wikipedia page. It's just an auto insurance quote search engine.164.52.230.162 (talk) 19:34, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Is there relevance for this article to exist? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 32.209.120.186 (talk) 19:44, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Title of this article

Please consider changing the title of this article from ″EverQuote Insurance″ to simply ″EverQuote″. The name of the company discussed is EverQuote or EverQuote, Inc. While EverQuote clearly operates a business that is related to insurance, it is not, itself, an insurance carrier or insurance agency.

Jks at everquote (talk) 20:12, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 24 May 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved as requested per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 01:47, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

---

EverQuote Insurance → EverQuote – Company name is EverQuote, not EverQuote Insurance. Also it is not an insurance company. Therefore our current title is misleading. HouseOfChange (talk) 11:57, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

• Support. The present name doesn't make sense. It's like writing "Travelocity Airline" or "Barnes & Noble Publishing Company". It's a confusion between the nature of the product/service on the wholesale side and what the named intermediary does on the retail end as an interface between the public and the wholesalers whose goods/services it provides aggregated access to.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  15:06, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
• Support. Even if EverQuote Insurance is the legal name (not sure if it is), using the name it commonly goes by is preferred. Great example would be Allstate. --CNMall41 (talk) 17:21, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Comment according to Bloomberg, the name is EverQuote Inc.[1] and articles typically refer to it as Everquote or Everquote Inc. WSJ also calls it "Everquote".[2]HouseOfChange (talk) 20:32, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Improving the article

Looking at article history, there has been a persistent Comcast-based IP making negative edits since October 2017. The IP changes slightly each time, but the focus remains the same: see edits by 2601:681:4e00:a341:c0a8:4a60:92cf:466b (with minor changes) made on April 18, Feb. 24, Jan 23, and Oct. 23 of 2017.

One paragraph in History section had 7 different references cited. I am working my way through improving the article, but 4 of these 7 had no bearing on the paragraph, but contained information instead about an app called Everdrive, which is not yet mentioned in the article. In case anybody wants to add info about it before I do, I am attaching those 4 refs to this Talk page. HouseOfChange (talk) 21:01, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

I added some info about the app, using 2 of the 4 refs previously included. HouseOfChange (talk) 20:50, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

References

Everquote FAQ

I can't see the FAQ or anything else on EverNote's website from Sweden. Would somebody who can read the FAQ let the rest of us know if there is something in there we should add to the article? We usually give more weight to secondary rather than primary sources, of course. HouseOfChange (talk) 13:43, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

A secondary source was provided too, but since you wanted to edit war over something you know nothing about, a primary source was provided to back it up. Everquote also informs users in the fine print below the form where personal information is requested that they cannot provide quotes and say the same thing again more prominently once the form is submitted. However, Everquote advertising and PR campaigns continue to be misleading. 2600:1003:B863:B359:5828:FB9:9A40:48C6 (talk) 17:21, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia requires reliable sources. The blog of a failed startup whose business model was peddling clickbait scandals about other companies does not qualify as a reliable source. Please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia policies if you want to contribute to this encyclopedia. HouseOfChange (talk) 19:47, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Interesting that you should use the term clickbait to describe the source. Clickbait is another one of Everquote's deceptive tactics. 2600:1003:B846:7BFC:2418:F98F:BB8:AF33 (talk) 03:43, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Advertising is almost by definition clickbait, trying to get you to look at ads and then buy stuff they sell. Clickbait journalism is a kind of advertising, and the motivation of its creators to peeddle scandal etc. detracts from the reliability of the information they claim is true. HouseOfChange (talk) 20:25, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

I disagree. Most advertisement sells a service to those seeing it. Everquote are hucksters trying to trick people into signing up for Everquote's "service" to they can sell their information to Everquote's customers who are the insurance agents and other 3rd parties. 73.148.104.157 (talk) 23:21, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

The service that Everquote offers is to match people with insurance brokers/companies. Their FAQ and reliable sources describe this. I understand from your complaint that you would prefer Everquote to give a direct response with quotes from different insurance companies, but as far as I know, it is not a service that any web company provides. (Independent insurance brokers in your home town do offer a service more similar to what you want.) The service of Everquote is to make a prediction, based on data you input, of which insurance company was preferred by past customers whose profile was like your profile. Considering that there are hundreds of companies selling insurance (Everquote apparently represents about 70 companies), this prediction is intended to save you time and trouble by getting you in touch with a small number of companies whose quotes you can then compare. If Everquote makes insurance companies waste their time by sending them profiles of people who don't want to buy their insurance, then Everquote will get "fired" by the companies. So it is in thier interest only to give your information to companies whose insurance you would want to buy. If they gave your contact information to only one company, that company would have no incentive to try to offer you the best deal possible, because they would presume they faced no price competition. But this Talk page is supposed to be about improving the article, not about discussing the topic of the article, so probably somebody should and will hat this rather offtopic discussion. HouseOfChange (talk) 22:23, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

The problem is that Everquote survives by being deceitful and does not provide any value to those seeking insurracnce. Wikipedia is currently aiding in the deception. Someone wanting insurance can go to each carrier's website, enter fictitious contact information and accurate information needed to generate a quote, receive an estimate and avoid dealing with an agent or divulging their true contact information. In theory, Everquote could run a webservice that does the same thing for multiple companies to provide real-time quotes and a "marketplace". More deception by Everquote: 1) Their profiles are not as sophisticated as Everquote or the article suggests. There are only about 4 profile types that customers can use to filter leads. 2) In urban areas and other locations with many potential insurrers and agents, Everquote does not "select a few" to receive the lead. Many complaints have been loged with the Better Business Burreau and online complaints boards about this practice. 3) Everquote does not do a good job of screening their customers; anyone wanting to obtain the lead information can sign up as an insurance agent by providing a bogus agent ID number and credit card number. 2600:1003:B852:4B99:B8EB:3A60:28D5:F6EB (talk) 13:12, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

It may be your OPINION that Everquote provides no value, but according to WP:RS millions of people who used EverQuote in fact signed up for one of the insurance policies offered to them as a result. EverQuote provides its service free to insurance-seekers, who are free to give them, or not to give them, contact information as well as insurance information. When I am using a free website to explore a purchase I might or might not want to make, when I get to the part that asks for my contact information I am pretty sure that somebody selling that product would like to contact me, and if I do not want to be contacted I do NOT input my contact information. Your claim that anybody can get EverQuote leads by pretending to be an insurance seller is bizarre, and based on what exactly? Please stick to facts that are found in WP:RS if you want to edit the article. Your disregard of Wikipedia policies just creates cleanup problems for editors who are here to build an encyclopedia. HouseOfChange (talk) 15:28, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Who do you think wrote or at least provided the information that appears in the publications you consider to be reliable sources? They look like press releases and sound bites provided to reporters to me. It's not as if the sources you accept as reliable are independently researched and fact checked scientific journals. The part about Everquote poorly vetting customers and allowing the use of fake IDs appeared in one of the sources previously provided is in the reference for this sentence. 2600:1003:B852:4B99:B8EB:3A60:28D5:F6EB (talk) 23:19, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a rating service. This isn't an Amazon product comments section. You cannot just repeat other sources making negative claims about an article subject even if they're considered "reliable sources", especially not using terms like "deceitful" or making subjective pronouncements like "does not provide any value" because that would make Wikipedia vulnerable to legal action for defamation, and "it says so in what Wikipedia calls reliable sources" isn't a defense.

Where did any of those terms or pronouncements ever appear in the article? I only ever added that Everquote generates leads for insurance agents and third parties, that Everquote does not provide quotes and replaced the term "marketplace" which I find to be misleading since Everquote does not provide a venue where transactions for buying goods or services can be conducted. 2600:1003:B852:4B99:B8EB:3A60:28D5:F6EB (talk) 23:19, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Taking WP:UNDUE into account, it may be appropriate to cover legal issues in the body of an article, in terms of objective events, such as "From 2013 through 2018, fourteen lawsuits claiming fraud were filed against company X" or "Company Y settled a malfeasance lawsuit for $13 million". But even then, unless the legal issues themselves are prominent in identifying the company and describing its significance, they shouldn't be the primary material presented in the lead. Largoplazo (talk) 15:56, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

By the way, see WP:BLPGROUP. Largoplazo (talk) 16:00, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Sure, but those policies do not justify including factually inaccurate information in the lead which Everquote also refutes. 2600:1003:B852:4B99:B8EB:3A60:28D5:F6EB (talk) 23:19, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

References

Article cleanup

Multiple reliable sources have called EverQuote an "insurance marketplace" but others refer to it as an "insurance matchmaker." Based on information in EverQuote FAQ (which I was able to read by using a VPN) and press reports, the latter description gives a better idea of its business model.

Based on EverQuote's FAQ amd several other sources, this article is wrong to say that EverQuote provides insurance quotes directly to users, although that may have been its business model in the past.

On the other hand, I see no evidence that EverQuote "claims to" give quotes directly or that their business model is a shocking secret hidden in small print. The matchmaking nature of business is clearly disclosed in the company's online FAQ and it is also publicly stated in articles describing the company. Our article should express clearly, accurately, and neutrally what service the company provides.

The article needs improvement in other ways. The current reference 2 is a press release from EverQuest, none of whose information is used in the article. Reference 7 is a very slight paraphrase of Reference 3.

I can't make these changes because I am not an admin, but I hope somebody who is an admin will remove the POV and inappropriate wording added by an SPA who has now been blocked for disruptive editing. HouseOfChange (talk) 00:26, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Calling Everquote a "marketplace" in the lead has caused contention. A "marketplace" would normally mean somewhere buyers meet sellers, but apparently to somebody it implies that EverQuote sells or gives direct quotes on insurance. Reliable sources have called EverQuote a "marketplace," but other RS call it a "matchmaker," a term that may be clearer and less contentious. Accordingly, I have changed the lead of the article. HouseOfChange (talk) 11:06, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

"Marketplace" is the better term. Sources calling it a "matchmaker" are using the word figuratively, as its plain meaning denotes a person who arranges (literal) marriages. Anyone's misimpression notwithstanding, a marketplace is precisely a gathering spot where many merchants set up shop and woo potential customers as they mill around, as at a farmers', crafts, or flea market. A "marketplace of ideas" is a forum in which multiple people put forth their ideas, not those of the person who set it up. If EverQuote was selling the product, then "marketplace" wouldn't be the correct word for it. Largoplazo (talk) 13:31, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

I do not feel strongly about this question, Largoplazo, maybe including both terms in the lead, since both are metaphorical and inexact, would be best? Perhaps we should also mention lead generation. I am not seeing that mentioned explicitly by any RS, but reading between the lines (aka WP:OR) since they get paid by insurance sellers and not by insurance seekers, maybe the article should discuss the service they provide in exchange for their revenue. HouseOfChange (talk) 14:16, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

References

Doesn't allow companies to pay for inclusion?

The following statement which is currently in the description does not make sense: it doesn’t allow companies to pay to be included in its recommendations. Rather, Everquote requires (most) companies to pay to be listed. Otherwise, Everquote would not make money. I think you mean to say companies bidding for referrals are not garaunteed to receive all possible referrals they may be willing to pay for as Everquote may selective restrict which companies receive referrals for particular insurance seekers. Currently, Geico (and possibly other companies) are not required to pay at all which has caused concern among some investors (source available if you search). It is possible those companies receiving free leads are in a trial period during an attempt to win future business, but I have not found a source stating that is the reason Geico does not need to pay. It could also be that Geico is not interested in Everquote's service at all so Everquote is willing to forgo payment so they can still include Geico to appear more legitimate to insurance seekers. 2600:1003:B84A:BEA:2554:2B44:15C5:641F (talk) 08:23, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

The statement you object to is a direct quote from a reliable source, the Boston Globe. The clear meaning of the quote is that you can't get a dodgy insurance product listed by EverQuote just by paying a fee. EverQuote makes money by getting paid when one of its leads buys insurance. Your speculation about EverQuote's business model, and your speculation that Geico does not like EverQuote but lets EverQuote use its name anyway (hard to see why Geico would do that) are not cited to reliable sources. Please use the talk page to suggest improvements to the article, for example by providing information from reliable sources. I don't think it is appropriate for the talk page to turn into a display case for negative speculations about an article topic, based on sources that would not be considered reliable. HouseOfChange (talk) 19:20, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Current status of ad campaign

Hello all, I removed the statement that the ad campaign featuring two young people positioned to appear as the founders of EverQuote by implication was discontinued. As of January 12, 2019 the ad continues to run in basically the same misleading form. We can see it captured at these tweets: Jan 12, 2019, Sep 19 2018, Jun 18 2018 & Jun 7 2018 & even into March 2018 the same ad. While the ad had some alterations, neither its apparent intent nor its approach or placements changed significantly. I believe this justified its removal. My removal was reversed by Largoplazo, who claims these aren't sufficient proof. However, the cited article Does Not state that the ads will end in 2018. In fact the Yahoo article states that another set are being ready to roll out. In fact, the article does not appear to have any source to justify the claim that the campaign stopped in 2018 or was planned to stop at any point in 2018. Further the tweets are part of a thread cited as part of a source notably not listed in the main article, one which notes that the advertising is also deceptive and supports a number of claims here that it operates unethically.

I believe this is sufficient proof that the claim "As of March 2018, the ads were suspended from circulation" is not well backed enough to be retained in the text of this article. I believe that Largoplazo's change should be reverted. Phifty (talk) 01:12, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

An additional note, the capture at the first tweet clearly shows the date, significantly after March 2018 and the person tweeting it is verified, known to be an advertising expert working at Facebook, which further bolsters his use as a source. Phifty (talk) 01:35, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

The statement in question is cited to a reliable source, Yahoo News, dated March 2017. Our articles reflect what reliable sources say, not what blogs like Mattermark say (in their January 2017 article), what people have claimed via Twitter, what you have inferred from what people posted on Twitter, etc. Check the policies on WP:RS and WP:OR. @Largoplazo: was correct to revert your change. Also, the capture in the tweet you mention shows multiple people and an ad about a team disrupting an industry, which is not the ad campaign that was suspended. Everquote continues to advertise its product using images of that emphasize its team's youthfulness but without claiming that those in the ad are founders, just team members. HouseOfChange (talk) 01:38, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

The source in question does not state that at all. I have not inferred anything, the ad campaign that portrays people other than the founders as running the company continues and contains date information in the photo. Further, the source states: "EverQuote’s head of communications told Yahoo Finance the company is in the process of removing the ad with Armin. Moreover, the spokesperson said the company paused the campaign two weeks ago. The ads are slowly being phased out because of the confusion that it has created" which states the removal of 1 ad in the campaign, but not the whole campaign. It states a "slow" phase out on an article from March 2017, there is nothing stating that the ad campaign has been discontinued nor is there any indication of a date at which the ad campaign is permanently discontinued nor a statement that the any element of the campaign has been ended instead of--at best--paused.

If we're talking reliable sources, please supply the source for "March 2018" as the date the campaign was suspended. No such source is linked as far as I can tell. Phifty (talk) 01:45, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Pinging upthread: @HouseOfChange: - Also noting that the issue at hand is there is no reliable source, or even any source, for the claim at hand and that is the underlying issue, putting aside the question of Tweets or if Mattermark is a reliable source. Phifty (talk) 01:50, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. "March 2018" was a typo for "March 2017", the date of the article mentioning the suspension. I have corrected the article and tried to make it clearer that the ad campaign suspended in 2017 was about "two math grads" or "two Boston grads." There was no commitment to suspend all advertising or to stop featuring young employees in future advertising. HouseOfChange (talk) 02:13, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

I don't think that is clear enough @HouseOfChange: - if you open their own website https:// article (dot) everquote (dot) com/ in an incognito window (stripping any referral cookies you may have acquired) you can see the ad campaign is still present, including the use of the number 2 and the image of a set of young people who are not the founders. Is a primary source, the company itself in question, sufficient proof that this claim isn't true? The article present at their URL still is the campaign landing page. This would seem to be sufficient to at least change the phrasing involved from "suspended" to "paused" as that uses their exact language. Phifty (talk) 02:21, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

I see a photograph of 3 (not 2) young people next to a blurb about "2 math grads", which makes it clear to me that the 2 math grads are not the 3 people shown in the photo but probably the 2 math grads who founded the company. I don't see how this is the same as the ads that were suspended in 2017. I don't see that this is deceptive. HouseOfChange (talk) 02:28, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi @HouseOfChange: you appear to have accidentally introduced a typo error? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=EverQuote&diff=prev&oldid=878964823 Also I think it is as equally deceptive as it was before, whatever level of deceptiveness that is, it was enough to cause concern and spawn two articles from reliable sources. If we truly need to keep the statement here, it should at least be clarified by saying that "On March 2017, EverQuote stated the ads were suspended from circulation" which is more factually correct and would at least be sufficiently clear to me that this is not necessarily a fact that has been fully verified (which is implied by the current phrasing), but a claim stated in public. Phifty (talk) 02:38, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

The tweet shows the date of the tweet. While that demonstrates that the capture wasn't taken after that date, it in no way establishes that the capture wasn't months or years earlier. In addition, as I said, the ads in those tweets aren't the ad discussed in the article. A statement that "Advertisement A conveying Message M was suspended in March 2018" isn't contradicted by evidence that Advertisements X, Y, and Z not conveying Message M were run after that. Largoplazo (talk) 02:45, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

References

Just reverted some category changes that defined EverQuote as an insurance company

Everquote provides referrals, not insurance, so it is not an insurance company (a company that sells insurance.) In many ways, EverQuote is similar to an insurance broker, matching clients to companies but paid by companies rather than the client. On the other hand, it differs enough from a familiar Main-Street-storefront insurance broker that it is less confusing for our article to talk about it as a "marketplace" or "matchmaker." HouseOfChange (talk) 18:29, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia says what RS say

EverQuote has been described as an "insurance marketplace" in multiple RS. I searched for news mentions of it and notice that a recent news item has EverQuote leadership describing their company as a "marketplace."[3] Here is another: "EverQuote, Inc.’s (NASDAQ:EVER): EverQuote, Inc. operates an online marketplace for insurance shopping in the United States."[4]

The article lead mentions that it functions both as a marketplace (where insurance shoppers go seeking insurance companies that match their needs) and as a lead generation service (where insurance companies get connected to people seeking insurance.)

It makes no sense to remove information from the article that is well-attested by the RS cited the article. Even if some new RS were to appear, one that called EverQuote a "lead-generation" company, this would not justify removing what other RS say about the company. HouseOfChange (talk) 03:34, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

There is a see also link in the article to Online marketplace which is well sourced from more neutral and non-press release oriented sources. Per that article and it's sources as well as the description of Everquote's activities in the body of the Everquote article itself, Everquote is not a "marketplace". 2600:1003:B869:F815:F8B7:C3F1:3ACB:B34C (talk) 12:56, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

It is a place where a lot of buyers go with the expectation to meet lots of sellers, online. I don't know a better description metaphor than "marketplace" and apparently lots of RS agree, since they continue to use that exact metaphor. I am not aware of any RS that agrees with you that EverQuote is NOT a marketplace. Wikipedia articles are not RS; see also WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Regarding your edit summary I do not WP:OWN the hundreds of articles on my watchlist (most of them like this one not very active.) My effort to keep this article matching Wikipedia policy is just part of my goal of wiki stewardship. HouseOfChange (talk) 16:12, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

IP, please provide a reliable source that explicitly states EverQuote is not a marketplace. You have so far failed to do that, and in the absence of any such source, the current reliable sources show a consensus for the use of the term. Your attempt to tie this to online marketplace and make declarations in WP's voice is an example of synthesis, which is not permitted. HouseOfChance is following Wikipedia policies, despite the assertion of your edit summary. Grandpallama (talk) 16:44, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Also, you are clearly the same IP who edit warred over this same material in November 2018 (and January 2019, and March 2019) and had the policies around reliable sourcing clearly explained to you then. So my good faith is already exhausted in this situation. Grandpallama (talk) 17:56, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

HouseOfChange makes a good point that a marketplace is where buyers can expect to meet many sellers. Everquote does not provide such a venue. Instead, Everquote acts as an intermediary and buyers only get introduced to the sellers who receive a lead generated by Everquote.

Grandpallama attempting to prove a negative is a foolhardy errand which I will not endeavor. If you are exhausted, you may find a brief wikibreak beneficial. 2600:1003:B869:F815:F8B7:C3F1:3ACB:B34C (talk) 22:11, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Like most words, "marketplace" can have many meanings. RS repeatedly use the metaphor "marketplace" to describe EverQuote's business -- and our articles follow what RS say about things. HouseOfChange (talk) 01:09, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

UTC)

HouseOfChange what benefits does including the term "marketplace" provide from your point of view? There obviously seem to be some (beyond just being the term used in press releases to promote the company) which I don't understand. For me, there is no benefit and the detriment is that "marketplace" does not accurately describe the activities Everquote conducts which are better described as "lead generation" based on the additional information provided in the same sources. Shouldn't an encyclopedia be more concerned about conveying more accurate information than self serving promotion. 2600:1003:B869:F815:F8B7:C3F1:3ACB:B34C (talk) 02:40, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

To quote Forbes magazine, "An online marketplace is a website or app that facilitates shopping from many different sources." It is accurate information, attested by many RS, that EverQuote provides a "marketplace" where insurance shoppers seek connections to multiple insurance providers. "Marketplace" is a term that RS repeatedly use, for example Motley Fool on May 5 "Online insurance marketplace EverQuote (NASDAQ:EVER)..." or Simply Wall Street on March 4 "EverQuote, Inc. operates an online marketplace for insurance shopping." You have repeatedly attempted, since 2018, to remove the term "marketplace" from this article in support of your own POV that EverQuote's business model is "lead generation" only. Reliable sources do not agree with you. HouseOfChange (talk) 03:00, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Everquote does not facilitate shopping. They facilitate lead generation and there is a significant difference. All financial journalists and publications use subject written summary descriptions about the companies they mention in articles. The fact that Motley Fool and similar publications parrot what Everquote told them does not make Everquote's description of themselves any more reliable or accurate than if it were taken directly from a primary source. 2600:1003:B84D:C995:ADC2:271F:4A32:B3AB (talk) 03:25, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

This IDHT is tiresome, and HouseOfChange's patience in repeatedly explaining the same thing over the course of a year and a half is remarkable. Not a single editor has agreed with you, not a single policy backs up your attempt to remove this language, and the page has been protected (again) by admins specifically to address your disruption (also again). Perhaps it's time you took your own advice about wikibreaks. Grandpallama (talk) 12:51, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

I suggest reading WP:PRSOURCE which covers all of the sources which have been purported as RS for this article. Since the only notability for the subject of this article stems from misleading advertisements and ability to obtain venture capital funding, questioning their choice of wording in PR content is warranted. 2600:1003:B84D:C995:ADC2:271F:4A32:B3AB (talk) 15:33, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

The article is not sourced to PR sources. For example, Xconomy says "online insurance marketplace EverQuote."[5] Boston Business Journal calls it "Cambridge-based insurance marketplace EverQuote."[6] Your claim is demonstrably false. HouseOfChange (talk) 15:43, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

I am sorry that you just don't like it, but Everquote is not a marketplace no matter how many people re-use their PR wording. 2600:1003:B84D:C995:ADC2:271F:4A32:B3AB (talk) 19:23, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

((Restart indent)) What I "like" is for Wikipedia articles to reflect RS consensus, not emotional beliefs that resist learning from new evidence. HouseOfChange (talk) 23:09, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Careful, some people might see those comments as a personal attack. Particularly since you haven't provided any new evidence or responded to my challenges of the sources provided. What exactly do you mean by emotional beliefs? 2600:1003:B84D:C995:ADC2:271F:4A32:B3AB (talk) 02:20, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

"Marketplace" description of Everquote originates from press releases

Simply search your preferred press release outlet for previous or recent releases about Everquote and you will see the exact same phrases about being a "insurance marketplace" in almost every one of the press release "subject" and "about company" sections provided that appear in the "reliable sources", e.g. [7]. Press releases follow a standard format [8]. The media, particularly the financial media, frequently use the information provided in the press release about companies they cover verbatim. So, what you and others have been insisting are reliable sources are only repeating Everquote's promotional material, making it non-neutral and unreliable.

WP:PRSOURCE provides additional guidance. 2600:1003:B84D:C995:ADC2:271F:4A32:B3AB (talk) 12:27, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

This claim was raised and answered in the section above. Bylined articles in Xconomy (which says "online insurance marketplace EverQuote"[9]) and in Boston Business Journal (which calls it "insurance marketplace EverQuote")[10] are not reprinting company press releases. Nor is the WSJ ("Auto Insurance Marketplace EverQuote). [11] If company PR describes some aspect of its business in an ACCURATE way, and then multiple RS vet that claim and endorse it by repeating it, are you saying that Wikipedia can't repeat the same true statement because it can be found in a press release? HouseOfChange (talk) 12:40, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

I am saying that the neutrality of the statement is in question and there is no sufficiently neutral source to support it. Per Wikipedia policies, unsupported statements may be challenged or removed. 2600:1003:B84D:C995:ADC2:271F:4A32:B3AB (talk) 12:50, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

The word "marketplace" has been questioned and challenged and removed by you -- only you -- repeatedly, since 2018. Not one other editor has ever agreed with your POV. Now once again an admin has protected the article to stop your disruption. You are wasting the time of Wikipedia editors, so please stop. HouseOfChange (talk) 15:01, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

That doesn't matter. Other than you, very few people have contributed to the article other than people who you have invited that don't appreciate that I prefer not to create an account and take a blunt approach to handling "editors" who I perceive to have WP:COI, WP:GAME or WP:OWN issues. That's hardly a large enough sample. 2600:1003:B84D:C995:ADC2:271F:4A32:B3AB (talk) 16:42, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Zero is the number of editors who have agreed with you. Your challenge of the word "marketplace" has twice come before a large sample of experienced editors at WP:ANI: once in 2018 when Ponyo reported your disruptive editing, once in 2020 when I reported it. Zero is also the number of editors, other than you, who believes my edits to this particular article are driven here by COI or GAME or OWN. You are wasting everyone's time here, so please stop. HouseOfChange (talk) 17:03, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Hate to break it to you, but no one from WP:ANI is even paying attention. Others only see an IP editor making a revert and assume it's a problem without doing much more digging. Why not simply remove the word marketplace from the description of the company in the article and we can both be done with it? 2600:1003:B84D:C995:ADC2:271F:4A32:B3AB (talk) 17:14, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

"lead generation"

Now that the disruptive editing has been addressed (thank you, Drmies), rather than the term marketplace, I'm questioning the inclusion of a description of EverQuote as a lead generation website. This was the product of the disruptive IP editor insisting on its inclusion years ago, but does it have the same sort of support from RS as does marketplace? I did a quick check of the RS, and while I may have missed it, I didn't see the term used in any of them (although I did see "matchmaking service"). I would recommend its removal, as synthesis not supported by RS. Grandpallama (talk) 14:40, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

• I'm going to sit that out but look forward to any conclusion. "Lead generator" reminds me of Glengarry Glen Ross. ABC, Grandpallama. Drmies (talk) 14:54, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

  Don't think you're going to go have a coffee, instead. Coffee is for closers! Grandpallama (talk) 14:57, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

I would like to see both "marketplace" and "lead generation" included in the article of EverQuote. It is true one needs to look hard to find RS that mention lead generation (so maybe it doesn't belong in the lead.) One of very few is Schwab's recent and not very flattering analysis: "EverQuote is one of many online insurance marketplaces out there. They are also one of many insurance lead generation companies out there."

"Lead generation" is such a widespread business model these days that for many RS it may simply go without saying. But it is important, I think, to make clear EverQuote's revenue model. Insurance shoppers pay no fee for using EverQuote -> EverQuote gets its entire revenue somewhere else. That doesn't mean they don't provide value to shoppers (as the Schwab article also clarifies.) But I will be grateful to hear what other rational human Wikipedians think. HouseOfChange (talk) 17:09, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

My comment here has been moved to the section below, but it is relevant to, and was meant as a part of, this discussion. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:11, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

@Phil Bridger: It is relevant, but it is also important enough in its own right that I thought it deserved more consideration. Feel free to revert my edits moving it, if you feel that would work better. HouseOfChange (talk) 18:13, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

for many RS it may simply go without saying feels like a potentially slippery slope to me. Describing it as a lead generation service in WP's voice without a consensus of that description from RS is still synthesis; we probably shouldn't describe it as such, if sources aren't, either. On the other hand, Phil Bridger's point is well taken. Maybe the opening sentence of the lede should be that EverQuote is a website described as a marketplace or lead generation service. Attribution solves the problem, to a degree. Grandpallama (talk) 18:20, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

OK but, if 90% of RS call it a "marketplace" and maybe 2 mention "lead generation" I don't think Wikipedia's voice should suggest those two are equally said of the company. HouseOfChange (talk) 19:31, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Completely agree. I would think "marketplace" belongs in the lede, based upon the frequency of its use, while "lead generation" could maybe be placed in the opening of the Description section as an alternative description. But if "lead generation" is going to be mentioned there, so should "matchmaking service". Grandpallama (talk) 13:32, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, Grandpallama that's a very good way to handle this. HouseOfChange (talk) 13:35, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Problem with basing article on news sources

This is the problem with basing an article about a company on news sources. Such sources, however much they may be touted to be reliable, usually base their content on information provided by the subject. It is only when a company does something egregiously bad that we get any other kind of sources. Don't we have any academic studies of the insurance industry that we can use to provide genuinely independent sources? Phil Bridger (talk) 17:46, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

I hope you don't mind my suggesting we discuss this topic separately from the question above. Some "news sources" are fact-checked RS and others mostly repeat what companies say of themselves. Maybe stock analysis articles (from reputable sources like Schwab or Motley Fool) reflect independent fact-checking. HouseOfChange (talk) 18:11, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Motely fool used to be reliable, but they seem to be more concerned with clickbait ads these days rather than doing any real research. 2601:5C2:200:46:C0B1:65B8:4759:7330 (talk) 19:49, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Adding claim to infobox about Allstate Insurance

The article infobox has been changed to add an uncited claim after the names of the founders: "founders = Seth Birnbaum / Tomas Revesz - + investors, Allstate Agency based in the southern US."[12] I don't think that investors are typically listed in infoboxes under the heading of "founders," but I also could not find any RS supporting the claim that Allstate was an early or important investor in Everquote. Therefore, I removed the claim from the infobox. HouseOfChange (talk) 00:49, 15 September 2023 (UTC)