Talk:Zoosk

sketchy business practices

I was caught in a phishing/spamming/spoofing attack by zoosk. A clearly programmed effort to trick people into joining who have no interest in a dating site, and then tricking them into opening up their email accounts so zoosk can copy and spam every one of their contacts. I researched the program, described it factually, and put it into the wikipedia profile. Not anecdotal. It is a business practice of the company. It is used to inflate membership numbers which, in turn, drives their valuation. There is a lot of collateral damage.

Any description of this company needs to include their aggressive business methods. 

Or is wikipedia just another venue for brochureware?

Radumas (talk) 22:27, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Let us continue to pray that it is not. I have tried to revise this article slightly to reflect the reality of Zoosk (while acknowledging that it definitely warrants a Wikipedia article). A true and accurate record of its disappointing customer service record is as much of its identity as its "success" at putting money back in the hands of its various investors... Notability comes with a cost: you are notable for everything you do, for good or ill, and Wikipedia will not record nor savor the one over the other. I hope the article as it is coming to stand will reflect this double-edged sword (THAT is what Wikipedia is... so much more than brochureware. Or so I like to think!). Let them have their well-earned notability... And let them come to regret it. KDS4444^Talk 10:13, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm always a bit nervous about editors coming from the perspective of editing to reveal the true nature of a topic - sometimes having people take different perspectives works well, but sometimes it ends up slanting the article too far in either direction. At any rate, the main problem here will be finding the reliable sources to back it up - there is possibly a lot of anecdotal material about problems with the company, often self published, but it might prove to be tricky to get good sources. - Bilby (talk) 12:25, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

NPOV Dispute Nov 2012

Section marked seems to be anecdotal. Are there any references for this behavior? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.188.193.243 (talk) 08:17, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

I have been in conversation with people in my address book who have been linked to me by zoosk without our awareness. I came to wikipedia hoping to find some information about zoosk tactics such as those commented on here: http://www.reviewopedia.com/zoosk-reviews and here: http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20111208161105AAohMK8 Nesdon (talk) 02:31, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

SPAM

This page is pretty clearly spam. This article has already been deleted once. It needs to be deleted again. Henrymrx (t·c) 22:00, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

It does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion as spam (WP:G11) and prior speedy deletions are not a valid reason for another speedy deletion (see WP:G4). If you think this article cannot be improved at all, you are free to use Wikipedia:Articles for deletion to initiate a deletion discussion. Regards SoWhy 23:23, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to try to assume good faith on the creator's part. I'm tagging this and giving the creator (or someone else) a little time to clean up the problems. If these issues cannot be resolved, I'll go ahead with a deletion nomination. Henrymrx (t·c) 00:26, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to work on cleaning up the article, which I agree needs work. Full disclosure: I work at Zoosk. I will try to be as neutral as possible, and rely on the community to correct me if I am not. I feel that this page warrants its existence based on the fact that PlentyofFish, OkCupid and Chemistry.com all have pages, and are smaller than Zoosk by many measurements (which I will cite). I also contest the assertion that this page is spam. It does not currently have much information, but it does not classify as spam (see WP:G4), as noted by SoWhy. Morticae (talk) 20:02, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Morticae, you need to STOP. You should not be editing this article AT ALL. EVER. See WP:COI. Henrymrx (t·c) 22:32, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I read that and I don't believe I've violated it. Users are cautioned against COI editing, but states clear guidelines for declaring your COI on the talk page, as I've done without prompting. I provided examples of other accepted pages in the same class as this website. The edits I made were purely factual data, based on third party sources, and I invite anyone to correct them. I'm not promoting, and I believe that all the information I've provided is general company information, and easily third-party verifiable.--Morticae (talk) 22:47, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

To be more specific, I believe what I've done falls into the category of "Non Controversial Edits" listed on WP:COI. I added an image, and I attempted to provide more reliable citations to public statistics. Again, if anyone believes these are in error, or I have presented them with bias, I welcome corrections. Thanks--Morticae (talk) 22:52, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

FYI: Zoosk has just tried to charge one of my credit cards, without authorization, and this fraudulent attempt is now under investigation by Bank of America. I had never heard of Zoosk, when I received a call from Bank of America this morning. Since the charges were not significantly large for my account, the only reason I can think of that Bank of America would have notified me, is that the source of the charge(s) was suspicious. Conclusion: Bank of America recognizes Zoosk as a source of fraudulent activity. For this reason alone, I strongly recommend removal of this page.Jfbrenner (talk) 13:36, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

However, that may have been a case of identity theft, and not fraudulent activity on Zoosk's part. Still, that is not a valid reason for having a page being deleted, based on personal experience. WERETIGER (talk) 18:29, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Zoosk, Inc charged a fee to one of my credit cards, without authorization. Luckily, Chase Bank called me and stopped the charge, and changed my credit card number. Perhaps this information should also be associated with the article? K012957 (talk) 02:36, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Zoosk is a notorious spammer. This article should be deleted, or at least a section about Zoosk's spamming behavior should be added. --Westwind273 (talk) 19:43, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Notability

Receiving Venture Capitol and Commercial Advertisements are not necessarily sufficient to establish notability 69.68.125.6 (talk) 18:32, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Articles For Deletion Nomination

I think it's time to nominate this article for deletion due to lack of notability and advertisement like content. Are there any objections? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.68.125.6 (talk) 01:55, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I started to write that I disagreed with the nomination for deletion. Although this article is fairly neutral, with factual statements, I now don't believe it is sufficiently notable to merit its own page. This page and other online dating stubs (such as PlentyofFish, Chemistry, and OKCupid) should be removed and the services should be listed on the "List of online dating websites" page.Reengler (talk) 13:52, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I think that deletion of all information on Zoosk may damage the mission of wikipedia, to illustrate the caracteristics of this online dating site which is similar to other ones. I agree that the first article is an advertisement, but I believe that it is better to correct the incorrect sentences as I did (I hope I did it well). For curiosity, I have joined Zoosk about a month ago and experienced a sly pushing to contact members. After you send a message the system notifyes that it is better to "validate you message paying the fee .....". I had sent to their staff this question: "can non-paying members contact other members?". The sly and misleading answer was something like "as non paying member you may send only a limited number of messages ....". When I asked what they mean for "a limited number" I got no answer. They try to grab your personal info, but do not give possibility to contact anybody without payment of fee. Like most commercial dating services. And this information should be given on wikipedia, for the sake of truth. Sorry I am new on this system and I don't know if and how to sign here this comment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sonoc8 (talk • contribs) 12:55, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Zoosk is an entity that everyone will encounter, sooner or later. Its business practices are very aggressive, to say the least. Because the company is real and people will see ads and receive invitations, an honest and complete description of the company is a proper service. It shouldn't be deleted. It should, however, clearly describe the various aggressive practices employed. Copy of website content is not appropriate, as it would be incomplete and deceptive. THe company is very well represented on complaint sites for a variety of practices. That is what the company is about. Radumas (talk) 23:33, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

• Zoosk totally needs an article here on Wikipedia— and that article should detail, as specifically as possible, its shady business practices, dissatisfied customer base, and some summary of the myriad complaints that have been made against them. Yes, we should have an article on Zoosk... As a record of their apparent malignancy. Sometimes there are reasons NOT to delete "spam" articles. This is one of those times. Let the record show, then, the truth, including the ample ugly truth. KDS4444^Talk 18:26, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Restoring relevant info in the lead

According the WP:MOSINTRO, a lead section should "briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article." Redundancy is not a valid reason to remove info from a lead section because a summary is inherently redundant to the content that it is summarizing. With these guidelines in mind, I have restored the following text:

The company was founded in 2007 by co-CEOs Shayan Zadeh and Alex Mehr.

Errtain (talk) 19:52, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Wow. For a guy with only a month of edit history, you already know how to cite policy book and verse.... Or am I wrong about the month-of-edit-history part...? KDS4444^Talk 18:19, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Correct Logo

Hi guys, I'm affiliated with Zoosk so I will NOT be editing the wikipedia page. However, I do want to say that we've had a new logo for almost a year, and it can be downloaded here: https://d3vzoqlbg2i3a3.cloudfront.net/static/2013/09/Zoosk_trademark_2013-lrg.png. There's also some outdated info about how couples can sign up in this article, this is no longer true. Thanks to anyone who reads this and responds! Eeblet (talk) 16:19, 12 March 2014 (UTC)