Talk:Brand.com/Archives/2014

Duplicate content

I just wanted to place a note here stating that I removed a section of content that was pretty much identical in sources and content to the Career section of the Mike Zammuto page. Of course, we could removed that information from the Zammuto page and place it here instead, so I'm open to discussing it here if that is the consensus view. GenuineDiva (talk) 15:38, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

If the information is applicable to the company, then what is in another article would not be relevant here. Also, please refrain from trying to paint a picture different than the sourcing. Staying that "Brand.com charges clients........." Is not what the source says. --BeloyiseBurron (talk) 21:00, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

See the recent reversion from one of the top editors on the site for your last edit. The mere fact you've appeared out of nowhere to suddenly defend a paid-editing company makes me ... but hey, WP:AGF right - I'm very certain you merely interested in the well-being of this public relations agency without any connection to it. Great to see it; almost never, ever happens. Ain't gonna edit-war, but definitely won't allow the white-washing of a company page when it has linked its revenues to this amazing, free, not-for-profit project. Especially those without the wherewithal to respond in a less obvious way. GenuineDiva (talk) 21:35, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Looks good. Being a top editor is not consensus. So, things were reverted to before you started destroying and twisting references a week ago. So make your case and well see if we can reach a consensus. --BeloyiseBurron (talk) 23:08, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Although the content GenuineDiva added is negative it is all clearly sourced. ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ 話 ♪} ߷ _{♀ 投稿 ♀} 23:30, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it was and I tried to be fair, and am open to others who think the material can be added in an even more fair way. Though I would point out that we are discussing well-sourced material that was white-washing from the page and I am only one editor. While that makes it 2-1 on including the material, that's only an invitation for a messy slim decision margin. I think we need more people here (the more the better) to ensure the decision is the best possible. Of course, white-washing long-term on the behest of one editor isn't likely best for the site. GenuineDiva (talk) 23:35, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

A vote is not consensus. Yes, it was and I tried to be fair, and am open to others who think the material can be added in an even more fair way. Though I would point out that we are discussing well-sourced material that was white-washing from the page and I am only one editor. While that makes it 2-1 on including the material, that's only an invitation for a messy slim decision margin. I think we need more people here (the more the better) to ensure the decision is the best possible. Of course, white-washing long-term on the behest of one editor isn't likely best for the site.— Preceding unsigned comment added by BeloyiseBurron (talk • contribs)

Don't add my signature to your comments; just bizarre that you'd do that. GenuineDiva (talk) 23:48, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Not to mention that it is a violation of policy. ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ 話 ♪} ߷ _{♀ 投稿 ♀} 00:16, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Promotional edit?

This recent edit [1] by IHR.HIASO (talk · contribs), and several previous attempts to perform a similar edit, raise some concerns. Changing "provides Internet search management, creating positive web articles about its clients in order to have them overtake negative news" to "connects clients and publishers to provide people with a news media outlet." looks rather promotional. Since the company, under its previous name of Reputation Changer, has well-cited reports of some rather sketchy activities, anything that looks promotional here is going to be viewed with some degree of suspicion. Please discuss here before making such changes. Thanks. John Nagle (talk) 06:01, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

I disagree that "connects clients and publishers to provide people with a news media outlet." but not "provides Internet search management, creating positive web articles about its clients in order to have them overtake negative news". They don't have the ability to overtake negative news and "positive web articles" sounds very promotional. The edit from IHR.HIASO (talk · contribs) didn't remove things the sketchy things that they did in the past so how is that promotional? PapasGrandes

On the contrary my "new" friend, a great deal of sourced content was removed, and replaced with promotional type content. I suggest you read both versions again. -Roxy the dog (resonate) 14:13, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

That's interesting because the first paragraph 'The company provides Internet search management, creating positive web articles about its clients in order to have them overtake negative news, and Wikipedia profile management, where Wikipedia editors are paid to advocate on behalf of Brand.com clients. Paid advocacy is a breach of Wikipedia's Conflict of Interest guildelines.' Isn't sourced. How is citing outdated pages also correct sourcing? Isn't Wikipedia about keeping information on the page relevant? How are edits by IHR.HIASO (talk · contribs) seen as non relevant? (PapasGrandes (talk) 15:14, 30 July 2014 (UTC))

Without reading them in depth, I see sources to both Brand.com's own website (in an archived version) and to webpronews.com where the material was mentioned in the body of the article. It's the removal of large chunks of sourced material without explanation that's problematic. —C.Fred (talk) 15:21, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

I dont understand how archived version is still a notable source. The company's home site shouldn't be used as a main reference but when it's removed it keeps getting put back on. Are we moving to allowing a company's home page to be used? (IHR.HIASO (talk) 17:08, 30 July 2014 (UTC))

Company home pages are considered reliable sources for non-aggrandizing material and for a record of what the company has stated. Sources are not required to be online; a reliable archive of something that is no longer online is a reliable source. If there has been a change in status (such as Brand.com getting out of certain businesses), please point us to a reliable source stating that they are no longer in that business. --Nat Gertler (talk) 21:41, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

I've added some new, relatively recent sources which mention them editing WP. Some of the content in the lead was a bit over the top though and verging towards WP:OR so I have removed that. It would really help if the obvious COI editors would follow WP:BESTCOI and disclose their connection. People might me more willing to work with you then. SmartSE (talk) 22:19, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Sockpuppets

FYI: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/BeloyiseBurron. SmartSE (talk) 21:22, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Both socks on this page have been blocked. As an observation, it is odd that sock and master, both SPAs, are so inept at wiki editing, particularly as the company they appear to promote offer a reputation management service to clients, including managing wikipedia pages to the best advantage of clients !!! -Roxy the dog (resonate) 00:07, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for taking care of that. John Nagle (talk) 07:04, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

New SPA: BetsMetsnJets (talk · contribs). Behavior like the others. Rolled back. John Nagle (talk) 17:38, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

You are faster than me. Is this a sock too? -Roxy the dog (resonate) 17:42, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Probably. The edit is very similar. Added this user to the sockpuppet case. Sigh. John Nagle (talk) 17:47, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Story in The Seattle Times

It was worth a check to see if the recent sockpuppets had a legitimate complaint. So, searching for recent "brand.com" news, the Seattle Times has a recent story (June 14, 2014) on brand.com: "City Light hires online results firm to polish its CEO’s image" [2]. City Light is a government agency, so the contract with "Brand.com" is a public record, and the details came out. "So City Light hired Brand.com, an online reputation-management company, to drown out critical stories in search results and replace them with happier items. .... City Light’s chief of staff, Sephir Hamilton, signed the contract with Brand.com in October, and extended it in February. The two contracts together authorized $47,500 for services through the end of this year. But a City Light spokesman said the city had paid only $17,500 to date and did not plan to spend more." So we now have a reliable source that shows that, as late as February 2014, "Brand.com" was still doing "reputation management". This contradicts some of the claims of the recent sockpuppets. --John Nagle (talk) 19:07, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Great References. Very happy to see that brand is finally getting what is coming to them! The company “fixes” Wikipedia pages or makes them positive but can’t even control their page or their reputation. This is a long time comin and I’ve been waiting for this day. Glad to see Brand.com goin down HOT.hot.HEATers (talk) 20:03, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Hm. Another SPA. First edit. Strange. Adding to sock investigation. John Nagle (talk) 20:09, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

I've already blocked the SPA as an obvious sock. I'd hate to have to protect this talk page because a blocked user is abusing multiple accounts. —C.Fred (talk) 20:11, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Time for semi-protection? John Nagle (talk) 20:13, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Asked for semi-protection at AN/I.[3] That may quiet things down a bit. John Nagle (talk) 20:53, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

There's more information about that contract in this article in Ars Technica but it might be more suited for inclusion in Seattle City Light than here. SmartSE (talk) 22:01, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Article Assistance

My name is Hannah and I am an employee of Brand.com and am trying to determine the best method to get the page accurate and up to date. I have written to Wikimedia General Counsel and they suggested that this was the best way to try to amend the page to make it more accurate and truthful, by disclosing my employment with Brand.com and seek to appeal to the editors who are monitoring the page. There is material that is on here that is not supported by references or accurate and yet it stays. Statements like ‘The company provides Internet search management, creating positive web articles about its clients in order to have them overtake negative news, and Wikipedia profile management’ are historic practices by Brand.com. Brand.com has shifted away from offering those services. Other statements are not accurate. ‘To help improve online reputations, Reputation Changer created its own positive content about its clients, in an attempt to force other less flattering articles about them down in Google search results.”

Though during this time the company had been accused of "making false claims" about the effectiveness of their services, the company insists that those claims are the result of rivals and not legitimate complaints. This includes the hiding of negative user-generated reviews for hotels and other commercial enterprises.’ are not neutral views. While Brand.com used to do some of the things listed, the company no longer offer majority of the services listed. The article is outdated and also doesn't appear neutral. How can this be fixed?

The goal is not to remove the previous posts, but simply to correct them, and describe what the company currently does. For example, the article located at http://www.inquisitr.com/1422726/consumers-want-their-advertising-to-tell-a-story-says-brand-com/ generally describes the new brand.com services. This has been the case since the spring of 2014. Lastly, the 22nd citation to the Percolate article is incorrect. Brand.com does not claim to have published stories on CNN, MSNBC, Fox News, Huff Post or Forbes. The article states that Brand.com has publishing partnerships with publishers “like” or such as the above mentioned online websites, not specifically with those sites. So, this statement is misleading as it misquotes the article. HannahBugs (talk) 21:37, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Significant company history, even if it is unfavorable, is history, so it belongs in the article. As for the Percolate article, the text there is "We had a conversation with Brand.com president Mike Zammuto ... Brand.com matches newsmakers (the aforementioned businesses who need to get word out) with journalists and publications looking for interesting stories. ... Brand.com’s platform enables brands to explain how they want to look online, and commission writers and reporters to tell their story as an alternative to “old-fashioned” press releases. It has distribution partnerships with media outlets like CNN, Forbes, Reuters, The Huffington Post, MSNBC, Fox News, etc." That's what your CEO said. He did say "like", rather than "such as", but that is not considered a significant distinction by grammatical authorities.[4] John Nagle (talk) 22:30, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

@HannahBugs: Thank you for disclosing your relationship with the company. That is a start, but given the history of the company editing the article dishonestly I'm afraid that it will take some time to gain respect here. If you haven't already learnt about how Wikipedia works, please take the time to read Wikipedia:Verifiability as this is crucial if you are to understand why the article is written how it is. I'll echo John Nagle in that reliably sourced information about the company's history should remain in the article. We aim to be comprehensive rather than up-to-date and unless there are solid sources explicitly stating that methods used in the past are no longer used the article should stay largely as it is. If such sources exist, then we would still keep the content in the article but change it to the past tense and reword it. The most recent high-quality sources that I've read (Nov 13, Jul 14, Jul 14) don't make any mention of the change in direction. I don't consider the Inquisitr source to be reliable - it's largely quoting the CEO without any evidence of serious critical reporting as in the sources I linked to above. You wouldn't find "High quality journalism, and selecting the appropriate publications, is the key to the success of the Brand.com business model." written in a New York Times article! The WebProNews source currently cited is much better that Inquisitr in this respect. We could maybe expand slightly on what is currently in the article to explain more about how the company creates 'news'. Finally the 'false claims' information is sourced to Business Week (i.e. reliable) and the article makes it very clear that the company blamed rivals. It is well sourced and relevant to the company's history. SmartSE (talk) 23:28, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

I understand how some sources are seen as more reliable than others and why material needs to be sourced. The guidelines of Wikipedia include magazines, journals, and mainstream newspapers. Opinion pieces, blogs or forums are not accepted. I do have some questions regarding the sources or lack of sources on the page.

One of the statements in the opening paragraph is not sourced and yet it remains on the article. ‘The company provides Internet search management, creating positive web articles about its clients in order to have them overtake negative news, and Wikipedia profile management’. Why would this remain if there is no sources?

The hotelchatter sources is a hotel review site that provides information on hotel openings, hotel reviews and openings. How is that considered a reliable neutral source? I don’t understand how a review site would be able to be used.

To be in guidance with Wikipedia standards, the page needs to be amended to reflect the new services, anything that is unsourced should be removed. The WebProNews is the most recent article published on the page and talks about how Brand.com matches ‘newsmakers with journalists and publications looking for interesting stories’ which is what the company currently does, yet the Wikipedia article is primarily based on the premise of reputation and internet management.

I would like to make these changes by Monday. Keep in mind that I am an employee of Brand.com and am trying to clean up the page. We have corresponded with Wikimedia General Counsel and the General Counsel's office has stated that by disclosing the relationship, we would be able to make these edits more easily. Thanks for your time. HannahBugs (talk) 23:49, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

The first paragraph is the WP:LEAD and does not need to have sources so long as the information is sourced elsewhere in the article, which in this case it is. Hotelchatter is a web magazine published by Conde Nast, not a hotel review site and therefore reliable. The part of the WebProNews article you have quoted is what Zammuto said whereas the author wrote "Brand.com’s platform enables brands to explain how they want to look online, and commission writers and reporters to tell their story as an alternative to “old-fashioned” press releases." The article reflects what the journalist wrote rather than what the Zammuto said as it rightly should. WP:WEIGHT is very relevant regarding why the article focuses mainly on reputation management - once again we follow the sources. What specific changes do you want to make? Disclosing your relationship is a start but it doesn't give you any right to control the article. SmartSE (talk) 00:18, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

It's not clear what the Brand.com paid editor is unhappy about. Wikipedia is using what his CEO said. Brand.com's own user agreement says "You authorize us to advocate on your behalf to defend your online brand."[5]. Brand.com is rated #2 in online reputation management by "Top Ten Reviews"[6]. A writer for the Los Angeles Times, as of two weeks ago, identifies Brand.com as being in the reputation management business.[7]. In November 2013, Brand.com launched a "De-Indexing Action Plan" service: "Michael Zammuto, president of Brand.com, says. “Our patent-pending De-Indexing Action Plan is the first turnkey process that can permanently erase misleading content from Google, Yahoo, and Bing’s search algorithms. No one else in the online reputation management industry offers this conveyor-belt style de-indexing service.”[8]. Brand.com even has a TV commercial promoting its reputation management services, last aired April 6, 2014. "We'll replace the negative sales-killing stuff with positive money-making information so your business always looks good..." [9] The company's own materials, statements by the company's CEO, and third-party reliable sources all agree that "Brand.com" is in the reputation management business. John Nagle (talk) 06:50, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

While we have moved away from those services in the spring, it is not an automatic thing that others can see. It is difficult to be seen as a new industry once you are have the reputation of being the top in your industry [10] [11]

To keep the article up to date and in line with consistent information is what I wanted to assist with. Many articles in Wikipedia that have not been reviewed by multiple editors suffer from inconsistencies and unverified information [12]. I thought it was important to assist in any way possible to eliminate those inconsistencies. While I do not believe that some of the sources are reliable or neutral, I understand that editors have to come to an agreement on material to get on the page or a census.

For reference, how long must something happen for it to be considered part of the company or not part of the company? Wikipedia had become a ‘news source because of its rapid updating of articles related to breaking news’ Wikipedia, but perhaps including recent news or events was also creating too many problems. HannahBugs (talk) 20:26, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia. Much of the information here is historical. WP:NOTNEWS: "While including information on recent developments is sometimes appropriate, breaking news should not be emphasized or otherwise treated differently from other information." See, for example, Standard Oil, which has information about bad things that company did in 1904. John Nagle (talk) 20:43, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not respond to your "we need it by Monday" deadlines. In fact, perhaps you need to get up to speed much faster than you have been. For a paid editing company, you do not seem very effective. Your history is your history, it cannot be wiped from the Internet. This isn't a place for you to "keep your information up to date", it is, however, a place where the most notable things Brand.com has done will be described. The company needs to do something else notable, before that can be added here. Also, read: WP:NOTNEWS, that will cure any misunderstanding you have about Wikipedia being a press release portal. GenuineDiva (talk) 20:50, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Possible sockpuppet - suspicious edit.

First edit by new editor BOOMERrang80 (talk · contribs) was to this article.[13] The content was promotional and was removed by another editor. Please watch for similar edits. Thanks. --John Nagle (talk) 06:07, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Sigh. I guess they've decided to go back to their old tactics. If it continues we can ask for more protection. SmartSE (talk) 12:26, 10 October 2014 (UTC)