Talk:Redbox

Revenues/Ownership questions

An anon user 66.32.191.208 posted two questions within the body of the article. I removed them, since they didn't really belong, but I'll put them here on the talk page, "[Note: 49.1 rentals/day x $1.00 per rental x 365 days/ yr = $17921.5/yr revenue?]" This was apparently to challenge the Washington Post article that listed 49.1 average rentals per day and $37,457 in annual revenue. Obviously, this reflects the fact that rentals are frequently kept more than one day. "[It is unclear who owns the remaining 6% of shares, and whether any shares are publicly listed/ traded on the markets?]" Actually, its pretty clear that Redbox is not a publicly traded company. Official statements disclose that the 6% is owned by "private investors." Anson2995 (talk) 14:19, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Criticisms

I deleted the line "At times, the average customer will view anywhere from five to eight DVDs (with errors such as split-apart images, sometimes so severe as to omit entire scenes altogether) before viewing one absent of significant error." because it is not sourced. I don't think Redbox would be able to stay in business if they had such a terrible record of messed up DVDs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Liniment (talk • contribs) 19:58, 25 August 2009 (UTC) I don't really know much about editing a Wiki article but I figured someone here would be able to update to include the fact that on September 5th 2010 Redbox rented it's 1 Billionth DVD since the companies inception.67.186.69.51 (talk) 05:21, 9 September 2010 (UTC)amplified

The claim is absurd. I've been renting from Redbox for years, I don't even know how many discs, and I've never had a bad disc. Greg Lovern (talk) 02:57, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Factual corrections

Hello - I work for redbox and am hoping to help update the redbox page to be more factually correct. We have noticed a number of inaccuracies that we are hoping to help fix. For instance, redbox was founded in 2002 (not 2003). We understand that the best way for a company to help update their page is through the talk forum. Please let us know how best to help. Thanks! Coinstarredbox (talk) 16:52, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi Coinstarredbox. Michael Rubin from RedBox Retweeted my blog post and I thought I'd drop by. As described here, the best way to make brief factual corrections is to use the request edit template mentioned on WP:COI. Use {{requestedit}} followed by a detailed description of the factual corrections you would like to make. Include a link to places where each fact can be verified. It gets added to an online queue and volunteer editor will occasionally go through the queue and review proposed edits by editors with a COI. Hope this helps! King4057 (talk) 22:44, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

"Accident Section"

Over the past several weeks there have been repeated anonymous additions to the article describing a purported accident involving an purported employee of the subject of the article. The edits have each included a link to an outside website as their only source for credibility -- a source that appears to detail some sort of personal involvement in a personal incident. Seven times the edits have been introduced anonymously and seven times they've been rmv'd, with requests for discussions or pointing out the various problems with the edits -- or that the article would be protected if the edits continued. Several of the edits have carried accusations that those removing the edits are, fill in the blank, corporate shills, etc.

This is the place to discuss edits to the article, and what may be problematic with certain edits. Wikipedia is no place for accusations of editors. 842U (talk) 12:18, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

President of redbox?

I was reading through the redbox section just calculating possibly how many dvd's circulate and noticed possibly an error or confusion; in the bottom of the history section it says that Anne Saunders is the new president of redbox and on the right in the tab section it says Paul Davis, President of redbox. Which is the correct one or is one the COO and the other the CEO possibly? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zaserd (talk • contribs) 06:09, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Reference 45 "page not found"

Went to reference 45, says page not found. Either delete the source or replace it with an alternative. 2606:A000:C690:4600:AD91:CF50:DA30:6D5E (talk) 14:38, 30 June 2017 (UTC)2606:A000:C690:4600:AD91:CF50:DA30:6D5E

Past Tense

How can the company cease to exist and still be in the present tense? I object to the page being locked with current tense reverted as the company no longer exists and has ceased operations. 82.32.136.130 (talk) 15:05, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

• @82.32.136.130: The reason the article is still in present tense is due to their kiosks still being in operation and the company still liquidating. Once a reliable source indicates that all their kiosks and assets are confirmed offline and the company has ultimately ceased operations, we can convert everything to past tense. MikeM2011 (talk) 22:56, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

I paid for a movie called Anna and 24.112.175.204 (talk) 08:39, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Reliability of duhweb.com

@Lavalizard101 @Wizzito So is duhweb.com really an ureliable source? I had a look at it, and it does not appear to be editable by any user like a normal wiki would. So I'm guessing in that sense it falls into the category of self-published source only, rather than straight up user-generated content.

IP user 92.40.21x.xxx must not restore the disputed content until we have consensus in favour of doing so. — AP 499D25 (talk) 22:49, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

DUHWeb is currently "under construction", but is a digital archiver, thus is considered unreliable in and of itself. Now as an archive the reliability stems from the original publisher which unfortunately is not specified, but based on the context of the IPs own comments are https://redboxtinkering.com, https://redboxwiki.com both user generated wikis nhich are no longer available and redirect to DUHWeb. Lavalizard101 (talk) 23:05, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

The websites Redbox Tinkering and Redbox Wiki are owned and operated by DUHWeb. Both sites direct users to DUHWeb’s extensive library, which remains active and accessible, making claims of their non-existence inaccurate. Unlike Wikipedia, these sites are not user-editable wikis. This ensures they serve as a permanent, reliable source of curated information about the workings of Redbox kiosks. DUHWeb acts as the sole online repository for this material, derived from contributions by former Redbox staff and technicians. The unique content provided is not available elsewhere, establishing DUHWeb as the specialized and authoritative resource rather than a random or unreliable source.

The inclusion of this material on Wikipedia underscores its historical value in documenting the development and functionality of Redbox kiosks. While DUHWeb’s websites may experience occasional updates or design changes, such updates are standard for online platforms and do not affect the accuracy or reliability of their content. Assertions about the sites being “under construction” should be understood as referring to their appearance at a specific moment in time, not the quality or permanence of the information itself.

The intention here is to offer accurate and valuable information to Wikipedia users, not to create disruption or conflict. Hopefully, this resolves the matter and establishes your concerns on if DUHWeb is or is not a reliable source, avoiding further edit disputes. Thank you. 92.40.213.118 (talk) 01:12, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Interesting that you say you are not "creating disruption or conflict" when you have a.) reverted multiple users who express doubt about the reliability of the source used, b.) personally attacked another user based on their disability status, and c. pretended to be an admin. wizzito | say hello! 01:37, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Additionally, you have just reinstated the source during the course of this discussion. wizzito | say hello! 01:38, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

The information provided on DUHWeb has been sourced directly from former Redbox staff and technicians, making it an authoritative and reliable source. Now that this has been clarified, there should be no further need to remove a valid reference without proper justification. It’s encouraged to take a moment to review the content thoroughly before dismissing its credibility. Unlike Wikipedia, DUHWeb’s library is not open to public editing, ensuring its content remains intact and free from vandalism—unlike this page, which has been altered to remove the reliable source without prior discussion, sparking an unnecessary edit war.

The intention here has always been to contribute accurate and valuable information for Wikipedia users, not to create conflict or disruption. Hopefully, this resolves any concerns regarding DUHWeb’s reliability as a source and avoids further unwarranted edits or disputes. Thank you. 92.40.213.33 (talk) 02:10, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Are you writing using ChatGPT or a similar AI? Even if it comes from "former Redbox staff and technicians," I would still consider it a self-published source. You are the person who is prolonging the edit war by readding the source without established consensus, and now you have been blocked from editing the article. Again you do not address your prior behavior, which I would consider as "creating conflict or disruption." wizzito | say hello! 03:49, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

information originates from someone, just like the content in newspapers or Wikipedia itself. However, unlike Wikipedia, DUHWeb offers curated, factual data that cannot be edited or altered by the public, ensuring its accuracy and integrity.

The credibility of DUHWeb has already been addressed, and there is no issue with its reliability. I suggest you review the points provided above and reinstate the source, as it is a credible reference and an important piece of historical documentation about the kiosks. By continuing this unnecessary debate, you are causing disruption and delay. Thank you for accusing me of what you are doing yourself by forcing me to repeat these points. 92.40.212.17 (talk) 07:19, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Regardless of whether or not DUHWeb is a reliable archive, the sources it's archiving clearly do not meet WP:RS guidelines as they are self-published. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 11:24, 19 November

Now you are blocked from this talk page as well as Redbox. Further disruption after the block expires will result in a longer block. Disruption on any other topic areas will result in a full block of this IP range.OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:17, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Note that I've blocked EncyclopediaFixer as a block-evading sock of the IP attempting to continue the discussion here. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 19:19, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Does anyone know how to reinstate some of the comments that the vandal removed w/o messing up everything? wizzito | say hello! 00:34, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

I didn't think there was anything in here worth keeping, it was just a lot of WP:IDTH. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 01:26, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Another IP address that geolocates to the same country (the UK) as the blocked /23 range attempted to reinstate the wiki through hijacking the existing secondary sources. Seems I need to watch this page further. wizzito | say hello! 10:54, 19 December 2024 (UTC)