Talk:Reputation.com

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Self-promotion

This article should be deleted, it is self promotional. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.173.108.154 (talk) 23:11, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

It is self promotional and a mere press release. However, there are real facts about Reputation Defender (now known as reputation.com) from third party sources that highlight the dangers that this company can present to its clients. But for reputation defender, it would seem that Sue Scheff, Ronnie Segev, and the Casouras family would be much better off. The casouras' photos of their dead daughter would have died off a long time ago (no pun intended) but for RD's actions. Therefore, if this article IS to remain up, it should be neutral and tell these cautionary tales along with re-printing the press releases that this company puts out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.104.146.187 (talk) 01:25, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

The current article is very different from the one that was criticized on 6 February 2010. It is based on information published by reliable sources. Those sources may not have the story entirely correct, but the negative information that you added to the article was not reliably sourced -- and in fact, is sourced to a website that has been blacklisted by Wikipedia. Wikipedia does not publish attack pages. --Orlady (talk) 01:39, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Excuse me, but The Consumerist is blacklisted? The Consumerist? That is more reliable than the press releases by this company! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.104.146.187 (talk) 02:03, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

The "blacklisted" source I referred to was Encyclopedia Dramatica. Your own edit identified it as "blacklisted." --Orlady (talk) 05:00, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Seriously, Orlady, are you a shill for this company? The research placed in this last edit was multiple sourced, from unbiased sources. If Reputation Defender is paying you to keep negative information about them off of their Wiki page, you really should disclose that fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.104.146.187 (talk) 05:05, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I assure you that I am not a shill for this company. You, on the other hand, seem to be a single-purpose account that is used solely to attack this company (and now also to attack me). As for sources, I agree that you have started to insert references to reliable sources into your content, but you are misrepresenting the contents of those sources and quoting the sources out of context. --Orlady (talk) 05:00, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

i have looked a bit at your edit history and it sure LOOKS as if you are some sort of part time contractor for them. I see a lot a neutral edits, quality edits, but a also a lot of WTF stuff.... obscure non-noteworthy entities with negative web search results on google that suddenly have their rather bland and neutral Wikipedia entry saved from deletion, simply because you manage to find 2 semi notable people who were affiliated with that entity?... OR reverting edits that have negative content citing an NPOV source on the web because you claim you got a DNS resolution error trying to view the page, yet other cites in the same article that are not negative, referencing the same website, which would have given same dns error if the error was in fact real, are allowed to stand? (and BTW, I had 4 people on three continents verify the night you made that claim that they were NOT getting dns errors resolving said page)

You seem to have a pattern of bolstering neutral or positive info, and finding reasons for edits to delete negative, citing spurious NPOV concerns, excessive quotes, or whatever excuse you can come up with. That, coupled with the fact that many of these edits have occurred on the page of an entity who's staff has confirmed for me that they have hired reputation.com...hmmm...Snertking (talk) 01:07, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

ReputationDefender Community Manager

Hello, my name is Rob Frappier. I work on behalf of ReputationDefender in the role of Community Manager. There are several neutral pieces of information about the company that would help expand the breadth of this Wikipedia entry. I understand and respect Wikipedia's provisions regarding conflict of interest, which is why I am starting a conversation on the discussion page. If a Wikipedia editor would be so kind, I would appreciate the opportunity to discuss some possible changes to this article that will provide additional information while maintaining its neutrality. Thank you. RobFrappier (talk) 23:37, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Last month, I requested the assistance of a Wikipedia editor to help flesh out this wiki with relevant and verifiable information. I have not heard from anyone since that time. Wikipedia's conflict of interest policies are an important part of the Wikipedia community, which is why I am again requesting assistance. If I do not hear from anyone again regarding edits, I will make the edits myself. Of course, I will only select neutral information that is verified by notable third-party news sources. Thank you. RobFrappier (talk) 19:03, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi Rob, since you have a conflict of interest, it would be best to propose any changes here on the talk page for community discussion, with the edits then made by uninvolved editors. That link explains our conflict-of-interest policies in detail. Selecting neutral information that is verified by reliable third-party news sources is indeed the right way to go. I put a template on your talk page covering most of the encyclopedia's policies and guidelines. Happy editing. --CliffC (talk) 23:49, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi Cliff. Thank you for acknowledging my note and offering guidance. As I wrote previously, I understand and respect Wikipedia's conflict of interest policies, and I am happy to work within those policies to improve this page. Below is a list of neutral content that I believe could help flesh out this wiki:

ReputationDefender Secures $8.65 Million in Series B Funding (Jan 2010) - http://techcrunch.com/2010/01/12/reputationdefender-kleiner-bessemer-8-65-million

ReputationDefender Secures $15 Million in Series C Funding (June 2010) - http://techcrunch.com/2010/06/22/online-privacy-startup-reputationdefender-raises-15-million/

ReputationDefender Acquires Professional Social Networking Website Ziggs.com (June 2010) - http://techcrunch.com/2010/06/08/reputationdefender-buys-ziggs-a-social-network-that-lets-you-market-yourself/

ReputationDefender Partners with Direct Marketing Association (Feb 2010) - http://www.marketwire.com/press-release/ReputationDefender-Partners-With-Direct-Marketing-Association-Enables-Customers-Choose-1188334.htm

Thank you again. RobFrappier (talk) 19:47, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Hello. ReputationDefender is now officially Reputation.com. If an editor would please make the correction to this Wikipedia article, and consider including some of the neutral content I shared previously, I would greatly appreciate it. Thank you. RobFrappier (talk) 01:24, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia Has No Integrity?

Why is it that the fact that Reputation.com, formerly known as reputation defender has been exposed as a scam and it was even stated so in this wiki article, and now it was removed? Does Wikipeia take money from businesses? They changed their name to avoid detection and are trying to whitewash it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.57.133.218 (talk) 15:09, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Why is it that when the fact that reputation defender is googled it autofills that it is a scam and their are numerous consumer complaints of fraud and proof that Reputation.com can not deliver on what they promise, and yet wikipedia censors out ANYTHING that makes reputation.com look bad? I wonder what else Wikipedia lies about in exchange for money huh? Maybe it's time for a grass roots movement to expose Jimmy the beggar Whales? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.57.133.218 (talk • contribs) 15:04, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Search engine results tricks are not a valid basis for verifying content in Wikipedia. --Orlady (talk) 02:41, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I was one of the editors that removed the information. Why ? Simply because it doesn't comply with the policy WP:V, a mandatory policy that Orlady also linked above and that was also noted in the edit summary when I removed the information. Please take the time to read it because all content must comply with it. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:31, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Search engine result tricks? Can you clarify? Reputation defender has many unhappy customers and the reason they changed their name is obvious. By the way, google will autofill what people type in.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.197.28.66 (talk) 01:00, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Take your complaints to the consumerist website or your favorite online bulletin board. Wikipedia is not the place to publicize them. Wikipedia is not a bulletin board or platform for airing consumer complaints and Wikipedia content must be verifiable based on citations to reliable sources. --Orlady (talk) 12:46, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

New untitled comment

This company is a complete scam, and everyone knows it. And apparently Wiki is taking "donations" to allow their BS to continue. Apparently they dont have enough "donations" to convince google to remove all traces of their fraud from the internet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.197.125.131 (talk) 10:18, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

No objective details of the services rendered.

The article is a "sales brouchure". If it were accompanied by details of how the company accomplishes their claims as well as a comparison to other companies in their industry; I'd find the article worthy of Wiki's standards. What is their market share? What is their corporate structure? Who do they compete with? What is a typical cunsumer experience? As it is, this is an abuse of the Wikipedia label.

Articles on web service companies are important to the Wiki readers, but this article fails the objectivity test. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vancraft (talk • contribs) 17:33, 20 July 2011‎

See WP:SOFIXIT Sean.hoyland - talk 17:42, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't impress

I added the information about the company's second name change to ProfileDefenders (why keep changing?).

I hear their ads every morning on WCBS-AM New York, and I'm of the opinion that their service amounts to: 1) flooding the net with favorable information about companies in order to push unfavorable information about these firms off of most search results, and 2) threatening litigation against websites with unfavorable information in order to intimidate these sites into removing the information. I beleive these tactics natuarally extend to Wikipedia results. It will be instructive to see if this discussion remains unaltered, and if my contribution about the name change (very neutral edit) remains unchanged. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.46.131.247 (talk) 01:22, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Reputation.com has not changed its name to ProfileDefenders, nor is the company affiliated with ProfileDefenders in anyway. Thanks, RobFrappier (talk) 02:20, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Rob, your comment was removed with the edit summary "Rob is a Spammer and Worker of Reputation.com Mods Please Take Note". I have restored it because you have openly declared your connection the company per WP:COI. Would it be possible however for you to not use Wikipedia to encourage people to contact service representatives ? Please see WP:NOT, "Talk pages associated with an article are for talking about the article, not for conducting the business of the topic of the article." Thanks. Sean.hoyland - talk 15:32, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Sean. I have edited the previous comment and will keep WP:NOT in mind for future discussion posts. RobFrappier (talk) 21:29, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Reputation Defender here on Wikipedia

It is my understanding one of the things Reputation.com does is edit articles here on Wikipedia to attempt to mitigate or remove adverse content. What is Wikipedia's policy regarding this sort of thing? Is there a procedure to follow if you suspect a particular editor is working in their employ to "spin" articles? Seems to me this could be a fairly serious issue affecting the integrity of Wikipedia articles. Snertking (talk) 00:34, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

The financial incentive makes it worthwhile. They charge their customers at least $1000 a year. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/21/google-problems-brandyourself_n_1369012.html AvocadosTheorem (talk) 17:51, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Well yes, of course, they are a business that offers a service. One that I would argue is useful. However i fear this sort of thing could be open to abuse, as i have found no statement of ethics for reputation.com. I fear legitimate negative content may be removed from articles by them. I think there needs to be some sort of policy regarding what i would term "mercenary edits" Snertking (talk) 23:14, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Rep.com a tool for people who have a problem accepting the truth?

One of the best tools for a consumer are online product and media reviews. If one can hire this or similar companies to generate an avalanche of positive reviews to supplant legitimately unfavorable reviews, it removes value from any 1-5 star or text rating system. The only thing we the readers have going for us is that massively generated positives are easier to spot. Unrestrained use of superlatives, florid support for an obviously poor product, and generally going overboard on something that a normal person just wouldn't have the time to write, whether they liked the product or not. There is one legitimate action for getting items removed: reach out to the site admins. But by overwhelming the system with ---shall we say false positives?--- the same goal can be reached. Bury the unfavorable by artificially stuffing in the favorable. That's what Rep.com does. No denying there are noble uses for this service. But we are in an area where ethical guidelines do not exist. In initially sticking up for the little guys, positive comment generators like this have opened the door to companies who want lipstick on their pigs.

Jed 02:18, 27 October 2012 (UTC)Jed Fish GouldJed 02:18, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Please see WP:TALK. This page is for discussing proposed changes to Wikipedia's article about Reputation.com. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:07, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Not feasible technically?

The goal of protecting a person's online reputation is very noble but a moment of reflection tells you this is just hopeless on technical grounds. Indeed Michael Fertik's own book "The Wild West" does make the (obvious) case that the web is indeed a wild frontier and that is exactly the point. The wild west was never tamed by gunslingers like Wyatt Earp. It came gradually from civilized infrastructure. To protect a person's online involves some challenging technical proof of concepts that have yet to be established and needed to be established before the company even started. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.90.214.42 (talk) 23:01, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Indeed! The "Encyclopedia Dramatica" (cannot show link as it is blocked here) has been saying terrible things about Michael Fertik and his company for years now and he has been apparently unable to stop it. If he cannot protect his own reputation with the resources of his own company, how can he protect other people's reputation? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.90.214.42 (talk) 23:28, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Censorship of Criticism?

I think it's interesting that criticism of Reputation.com has been conveniently deleted from this page, and yet criticism of other websites/internet services are allowed to stay on their respective pages. I would like to know why Reputation.com is allowed a privilege not afforded to other web services. Do they donate to Wikipedia? Why are they so special, especially when legitimate criticism of the company exists? 129.79.70.161 (talk) 20:43, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

First pass

I took a first pass at the article, making sure the sources directly supported the article-text, doing some research to fill in obvious gaps, and lots of trimming of primary sources, etc. Besides the mundane corporate history stuff (year founded, funding, growth, name-change), I think there are two big questions that are the most difficult to do fairly. (1) Is it ethical and/or good for society? The balance between free speech and a person's right to privacy, etc. etc. (we encounter the same balancing act on BLP pages) and (2) Is it effective? The answer is something along the lines of "it depends". CorporateM (Talk) 00:28, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Update?

An update on the company is needed here. Apparently Reputation.com is still NOT profitable. Also their initial director of engineering Tom Dignan subsequently demoted to R and D manager years ago finally left the company. Perhaps this site was premature? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.26.181.236 (talk) 04:21, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

I can confirm that Tom Dignan left Reputation.com and that Reputation.com was not yet profitable in 2015. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.207.246.156 (talk) 14:46, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Michael Fertik is no longer CEO of Reputation.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.51.38.11 (talk) 13:43, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

We are now in 2017 and there is no update worthy of having this site justified in the first place. The critics are mostly right. The site for Michael Fertik should perhaps be kept but this site has become sclerotic and not worth keeping.TonyMath (talk) 07:30, 7 January 2017 (UTC)