User talk:SarahER

Hello, and thanks for your message on my talk page. Generally speaking, I'd advise you to be bold and make any changes you see fit, since neither I nor anyone else owns that or any other Wikipedia article. However, asking other editors for their advice and opinions is always a good thing, and thank you for asking, and I'm more than happy to help you in any way you need it.

You asked if I thought it necessary to say that Angie's list is "privately held and for profit". Eh, I don't know. It said that when I found the article. It's useful information to know; but it's also in the infobox and redundancy is a bad thing. I've thought several times that it was an awkward wording. Go ahead and change it if you can think of something better.

You also asked if it was necessary to mention revenue sources; I'd say yes. It's important to understand where a company gets its money; and the fact that they accept advertising but most of their fees come from subscribers is important to an understanding of their business model. The fact that they accept advertising is a point of concern for some of their critics, so I'd say mention of their revenue sources should definately stay.

You need to be careful using their website as a source. In general a company's own website is not considered a reliable source. You should definately try to find information in magazines, business journals, websites like Hoover's, etc. and cite those as your sources (This page has some handy templates which you can use). However, the company's own website is definately relevant, and there should be (and already is) a link to it in the article. Also, some things on their website can be cited; for example if they post a response to criticism they can be quoted. Use common sense.

You asked why I removed

"Members submit information about contractors and receive the magazine. Contractors are not allowed to post information about themselves directly, and each report submitted to Angie's List is screened by an internal data team."

That statement had been changed right before from

"Contractors are not allowed to post information about themselves directly, but little prevents contractors from using surrogates to buy memberships and submit positive reviews about themselves and negative reviews about their competitors."

I was trying to reduce the non-neutral point of view in the article. One of those statements seems very anti-Angie's List, the other one seems to veer too far in the opposite direction and be too pro-Angie's List. I agree that it is important to note that companies are not supposed to post information about themselves and that Angie's List has a screening process to prevent that, and it's probably also important to note that there are ways around that screening process. I'm just not sure how to note those in neutral terms, and at the moment there are no sources provided for either fact so I just cut it out. Again, if you can phrase it in such a way that both viewpoints are presented and sourced please do so.

And as for the logos - So that explains it! I'll go ahead and switch them. I only saw the green one on the website, but I saw the purple one in an old issue of the magazine and read articles about Angie's List on various other websites where that logo was used. I found it rather confusing, but since the purple one was on their magazine I thought it was the best choice for the infobox. I'll change them and make a note that the purple one is an old logo that's no longer used.

Under this message I'll leave you a standard welcome message. It has a lot of useful links that would take you forever to find on your own. But again, welcome to Wikipedia, and feel free to ask me again if you don't understand something or need help with anything. :) ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 21:26, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Standard welcome

Welcome!

Hello, SarahER, and welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

In addition, you are encouraged (but not required) to cite your sources. Wikipedia:Citation templates has some useful fill-in-the-blank type things that may make that easier, but feel free not to use them if you find them confusing.

You may want to look at some of Wikipedia's best work to get an idea of what we are aiming at.

You are invited to use your userpage to tell us a little about yourself; yours is here.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on this page (which is your talk page) and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. You also might be interested in being adopted by Wikipedia's Adopt-a-user program. Again, welcome!

~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 21:26, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Angie's List again

I formatted the citations so one source can be cited in two different places. Someone apparently didn't like your latest version and reverted it again, leaving only the corrected logos. I went through and tried to combine them some, since your latest version had a lot more sourced material and read a lot better. I have requested a peer review for the article hoping to get a few neutral eyes to point out where it fails NPOV and help with copy-editing, etc. We'll see what happens with it. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 17:55, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree; I've seen blatent advertising here on Wikipedia, and no version of the Angie's List article reads like advertising to me. I also would like to find a reliable source for some of the negative claims; but there are two discussion forums that are filled with similar complaints that, while they shouldn't be cited as sources per Wikipedia policy, do exist and are evidence that at least someone somewhere feels that way. I wish the person with issues with the article would discuss them instead of just reverting. It makes it really hard to improve the article, or even know where it needs improvement. Oh well. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 14:16, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering if you maybe worked for Angie's List. You know, just a gut feeling. You are right then, you shouldn't edit it (conflict of interest, etc.), but if you have newer or updated information or can point us to good sources, be sure to stop by the talk page. I hope you find other articles to contribute to, Wikipedia can be a lot of fun. :) ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 15:03, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your AMA request

I saw that you'd placed a request for an advocate, and would be available to help you if you still need. If you still need help with this case, please let me know! I can be contacted either on my talk page or by email. Please note that any messages left on my talk page are public, while anything sent to my email will be considered confidential and private, so please feel free to use either method at your preference. (If you no longer require assistance, please let us know that as well.) Thanks! Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 09:22, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]