Talk:Carfax, Inc.

Virginia Low‑importance

	Virginia portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Virginia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Virginia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.VirginiaWikipedia:WikiProject VirginiaTemplate:WikiProject VirginiaVirginia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Missouri Low‑importance

	Missouri portal This article is part of WikiProject Missouri, a WikiProject related to the U.S. state of Missouri. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.MissouriWikipedia:WikiProject MissouriTemplate:WikiProject MissouriMissouri articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Columbia, Missouri Low‑importance

	This article is related to WikiProject Columbia, an attempt to write quality articles about the Missouri city of Columbia and the surrounding Metropolitan Area. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.Columbia, MissouriWikipedia:WikiProject Columbia, MissouriTemplate:WikiProject Columbia, MissouriColumbia, Missouri articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Untitled

http://www.cbc.ca/marketplace/2009/vehicle_history_reports/main.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.35.80.211 (talk) 17:29, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Inital Comments

Why is there lawsuit information here? That has nothing to do with the company, what it does or what it provides. If we were to publish lawsuit information for all companies we'd have millions of pages of information for companies such as IBM, Wal-Mart, etc. It's useless information in my opinion. --Robertstinnett 02:46, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A quick search will show that Robertsitinnett works for or has worked for carfax.

Is it standard policy to blank the discussion page? The lawsuit information is relevant because Carfax main (only?) service is providing vehicle histories. And it turns out that carfax's main service does not do what they claim. BTW, the Walmart article you mentioned DOES include information about their legal labor-relation troubles. IBM's main article ALSO has information about lawsuits. Lawsuits are relevant. The lawsuit is both relevant and timely. 24.250.217.49

I don't hide the fact from anyone of who I work for -- I am a Democrat too, doesn't mean I run around changing all the Republican entries I don't agree with. I merely asked a question. Just make up your mind one way or the other. This "here today, gone tomorrow, back the day after" is getting ridiculous. And my official stand on anything on this page or encyclopedia entry is as follows: "I am afraid I cannot speak one way or the other on behalf of the company, please contact our legal department for more information." But, personally, I think we got a pretty darn good product. --Robertstinnett 03:46, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What was the outcome of the lawsuit? Or is it still ongoing? Either way, it seems strange that this isn't mentioned. Deepfryer99 (talk) 20:16, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Settled[1] Corey Salzano (talk) 21:02, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I updated this section with a source. Follow it for more info on the lawsuit--there is plenty that we could include here such as the rejection of the first proposed settlement. Corey Salzano (talk) 16:55, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article is suffering from constant insertion of advertisements for car websites and removal of the lawsuit information. Would people care to have a discussion on this talk page? 16:16, 24 January 2007) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.164.72.13 (talk • contribs)

Sock puppet/vandal notice

User:BoyRoy and User:Roybuoy have been blocked as sockpuppets of User:Verdict. User:Teafyplant, User:Lleafyplant, and User:Cornellrocky have been blocked as single-purpose accounts with usernames intended to be confused with legitimate editors who are reverting unexplained deletions of sourced information (i.e., vandalism) to the article. In light of all of this, editors who see similar edits (deletions) by brand new users are encouraged to assume bad faith and to revert such edits on sight. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 02:19, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I work for CARFAX and in a good-faith effort to make the article more complete, sourced, and professional, I have made edits and added an infobox. If you have comments or suggested changes, please let me know on this page. Thank you. Vehiclehist (talk) 21:03, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Professional enough to remove the sourced lawsuit section, huh? Corey Salzano (talk) 15:27, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Completeness of maintenance information

Carfax claims to collect information on maintenance/service events - but why would a repair facility provide this information? If I back my car into a tree or a fire hydrant, then take it to a mechanic get the bumper replaced, why should the mechanic inform Carfax? Isn't this a private matter between myself and the mechanic, if the police were not involved? The mechanic is certainly not helping me, his customer, by reporting such damage.

If mechanics do report this kind of information to Carfax (via some other agency, perhaps), then the article should explain how and why. And if they don't report it, we should emphasize that such details are likely to be omitted from the report. Mtford 01:56, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but to suggest that you are somehow harmed by a mechanic passing on information to Carfax about you backing into a tree makes me wonder what you're trying to hide. Carfax exists as a tool for whomever ends up buying your car, and I'd say that any and all information about what the car has been through is of great benefit. I'm pretty sure that things as minor as repair or replacement of a bumper on a Carfax report won't be enough to turn people off to buying your car on its own. I know some people can be overly picky, but if they'd prefer to buy a car with the original bumper, that's their prerogative. If the bumper was replaced with an aftermarket part and the prospective buyer lived in an area with aggressive drivers (i.e. NYC) and had small children, they may be more concerned than most about the integrity of the rear end of the car.

It's not like mechanics call Carfax and tell them everything, but major auto service facilities have their service records on computers, and I assume that certain companies sell their service data to Carfax. I see nothing wrong with that, since it protects the consumer. Consumers have a right to full disclosure of potential problems with products they purchase used, even though it's a relatively recent development for that information to be accessible. Sellers, on the other hand, do NOT have a right to keep such information a secret just so they can unload a junker on the first suck... er, the first unsuspecting customer who happens by. I completely understand that over-sensitivity to the least tiny problem with a car would make it difficult for auto dealers to do business, but getting the information out there should actually have the effect of giving prospective buyers a better picture of what cars tend to go through over their lifespan. Most people who have owned cars understand this anyway, so being afraid of losing customers because they might find out that the mirror fell off once back in '99 is kind of irrational.

The bottom line is that nothing is "a private matter" when you're trying to sell something. Carfax reports are based on VIN numbers, and the only time someone else besides the DMV is going to have your VIN number is when you're trying to sell the car, so you can keep all your midnight rendezvous with your mechanic a secret as long as you're not planning to pass the vehicle on to someone else. Once you're expecting someone else to trust the lives of themselves and their passengers to the safety of the vehicle, then all that information should be disclosed to the buyer. Yes, this is a recent development, and Carfax is in the vanguard. However, it's a decades-old practice... HONEST sellers have done it for years ("it burns oil", "I had a wreck two years ago", etc.) -- the only difference is that with Carfax, information that sellers have either forgotten or wish to conceal is made available to buyers, and it goes beyond just the most recent owner. I fail to see any way that could be considered a bad thing. 72.236.218.36 (talk) 23:15, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This page needs some counter-points to what otherwise looks like a Carfax factsheet. Beyond the lawsuit, there are numerous complaints about Carfax's unwillingness to correct its records, and inability to gain information from the most important source: insurance companies. A great report on all these issues: <Link removed as spam by Blatsnorf (talk) 23:41, 4 December 2007 (UTC) > Adam2020 14:29, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The word choice of 'Carfax claims' is derogatory and does not suggest you are genuinely seeking an answer. By what information do you challenge the 'claim' that Carfax makes?

Maintenance and service events are not necessarily damage repair. Proactive measures such as changing the oil or brakes is maintenance and service. This could increase the value of the vehicle in question. On the other hand, if you see that the car has been aligned 6 times in the past couple years, maybe it's not such a good thing.

Why should the article explain how and why Carfax gets its information?

What makes you suggest that the insurance companies are the most valuable source of information?

When you say that 'there are numerous complaints', have you done an analysis to see if the number is statistically relevant?

Blatsnorf (talk) 23:41, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Corporate overview

The Corporate overview section seems excessively self-promotional. Also, in the "West v. CARFAX, Inc" section, the final two sentences are unsourced. "Carfax spokesman Larry Gamache said more than 10 million consumers were affected. The company asserts that it has major accident information from all 50 states and it backs up its claim with a buyback guarantee." Dewey Finn (talk) 00:00, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a template stating that the article is written like an ad, and I've also done some cleanup to the article to remove some advertisements. If you think I've done something wrong please don't hesitate to revert the article. -09SentraSpecV (talk) 09:38, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request it's removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

http://www.cbronline.com/article_news.asp?guid=E813CEBE-13BE-4A6B-9AD7-63B22450E8BA
Triggered by \bcbronline\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II ^Notify_Online 17:16, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved This issue has been resolved, and I have therefore removed the tag, if not already done. No further action is necessary.—cyberbot II ^Notify_Online 00:14, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Carfax (company). 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) 04:36, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

IHS mentions

I'm looking through auto research sites to educate myself on the different factors that go into notability and it seems like the IHS mention in the intro is just there to shoehorn in a CNBC reference. I read in the notability standards that a holding company isn't notable just because its brand is and vice versa. Wouldn't it make sense to remove the IHS mention? It may go in the body of the article somewhere but certainly isn't appropriate in the overview? Brad Thomas Hanks (talk) 11:23, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]