Jump to content

Talk:QuiBids.com

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit]

I've added an external links section that contains several YouTube videos. While random uploads from YouTube users are not considered reliable sources, the links I've included were produced and aired by various local news channels. Rklawton (talk) 18:17, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of Interest

[edit]

As noted on his user page, this article's creator works for QuiBids as a copywriter. Rklawton (talk) 18:32, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lottery

[edit]

The comparison of QuiBids.com to a lottery isn't valid. A fair lottery relies on random chance where all entries have an equally small chance of winning. QuiBids.com is more like a "win the car" game where the last contestant standing with his or her hand still on the car wins the car - with the provision that the contestant must continue to pay in order to stay in the game. However, there's a lawsuit or two pending claiming that QuiBids acts like a lottery, so we're really going to need reliable sources before we can make a claim one way or the other. Rklawton (talk) 18:31, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If the comparison to a lottery isn't valid, then what good is that business about the expected value of a lottery doing down there in the criticism section? Matthewacarney (talk) 20:35, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Removed. Rklawton (talk) 14:01, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The capital "B"

[edit]

Matt from QuiBids here! I've seen several edits to the page in the last few months and I'd like to point out that our proper, trademarked title is "QuiBids" with a capital "B" in the middle of the word. I've corrected these edits by hand for a while but I've grown pretty tired of it. So please, while editing in the future, bear in mind that anything other than the "QuiBids" spelling is technically inaccurate. Thanks! Matthewacarney (talk) 20:01, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Page Monitor

[edit]

Hello. I'm Jill with QuiBids. I wanted to introduce myself as I'll be monitoring our page from time to time to make sure the information stays accurate. Should you have any questions, feel free to reach out. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by JillWhitney (talk • contribs) 21:28, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jill - that's a good way to do it. Are you familiar with CREWE? They've got a lot of information and resources available to help you better understand the relationship between Wikipedia and PR professionals and how to engage Wikipedia effectively and ethically. You're already off to a good start. Rklawton (talk) 02:49, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Country Operations

[edit]

Background info additions: QuiBids launched in Austria in February 2013 and Italy in May 2013. --66.210.91.122 (talk) 19:05, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

QuiBids Store

[edit]

QuiBids Store, a more traditional e-retail side to the company, launched in November of 2012 in the US market. In February of 2013, it launched the Store in the CA market. Press release links for the association of the launches: http://news.cision.com/quibids/r/quibids-launches-quibids-store,c9337591 and http://news.cision.com/quibids/r/introducing-quibids-store-in-canada,c9378061 --66.210.91.122 (talk) 18:29, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quibids Controversy And Public Feedback

[edit]

There is no mention of the hundreds of scam reports regarding Quibids, nor any rebuttal here to those, incidentally. Nor is there any mention of the lawsuits in the pipeline with Quibids as the Plaintiff, invariably for Fraud, and variations of that. There is also talk among those who have had the Quibids experience, that the Feds are considering taking action under the "RICO" statute. (i.e., that it is pure and simple an example of organized crime, intentionally, and on a large scale

Also, Quibids claims some affiliation to the BBB. Would anyone care to specify just what that affiliation is - specifically? 76.9.81.76 (talk) 21:02, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on QuiBids.com. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:10, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Further reading

[edit]

Moving here for storage per WP:ELNO. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:43, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edit

[edit]

I've reverted your edits to QuiBids.com as they appear to be an effort to whitewash the article by removing useful and sourced information about the subject. If you still have an interest in the subject, the next appropriate step would be to discuss your proposed edits in the article's talk page. Rklawton (talk) 02:57, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's not clear to me how restoring self-cited information is helpful to the readers (diff). I had removed it because it was promotional for the company's business. That's the opposite of "extreme whitewashing". Could the reverting editor please clarify? K.e.coffman (talk) 03:07, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Let's look at these edits a piece at a time. How about "Further reading"? These sources aren't self-cited. Why should they be removed? Rklawton (talk) 20:29, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Rklawton: This amount of external links could be considered excessive, so that was just general maintenance per WP:ELNO. I do not fell strongly about this, so they can be returned to the article if desired. I don't see an issue in that. However, the prose that I removed was self-cited and promotional, and I don't believe it belongs in the article. Could you please review and advise? K.e.coffman (talk) 03:51, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK, next up: rebranding as an entertainment site. The fact that it's self-sourced isn't important, though I have no objection to a secondary source. The fact that it has rebranded as "entertainment" has legal implications and really needs to stay. It's sort if like the difference between a "dietary supplement" (which has to be safe) and a "medication" which has to be both safe and effective. By rebranding as "entertainment", they are putting themselves in the same position as a carnival game. You play for fun and not with the realistic expectation of actually winning the giant teddy bear. Rklawton (talk) 16:15, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:QuiBids.com&oldid=1202885091"