Talk:Reputation management/Archives/2015

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Mugshot removal services

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

I'm questioning whether this is part of the reputation management industry. Is there any other sourcing except the one (that appears to be reporting of a mugshot removal company calling themselves part of the reputation management industry, rather than an uninvolved reporter calling them that) that accepts mugshot removal services as a legitimate industry subset? I've been trying to find others who are calling it that, but it's so hard to do a search on 'reputation management industry mugshot removal' because most of what comes up are ads for mugshot removal services, again some calling themselves reputation management companies. Can anyone else find other sources supporting this assertion? valereee (talk) 18:19, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Okay, just calling it part of the ethically-gray portion of the industry...that'll work for me. valereee (talk) 13:13, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Plans to modify this article for Social Computing course

Latest comment: 8 years ago60 comments5 people in discussion

Brief Introduction

This section is for the Social Computing course (Fall 2015 semester) opened in iSchool in University of Pittsburgh.

Improving this article with classmates, who are assigned to work together by professor Rosta Farzan, could highly enhance our abilities to corporate with each other in such a social website. My plans are going to be posted in next few days. CynthiaZsy (talk) 14:38, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Talk below

Add this line to organise this section. CynthiaZsy (talk) 20:42, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Please feel free to talk to me if you are also a member in social computing course and have the same article to modify. Wish to have a good cooperation with you! CynthiaZsy (talk) 14:43, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi! I need to modify this article too! I think, maybe, each person can choose an area to improve, and set a new section separately. For example, I set a new section for an area and post my plan about how to improve this area on my section. then you guys can give any suggestions on my section.HelloSocialComputing (talk) 15:21, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

@ HelloSocialComputing Sure! No problem. I think we should know well about each parts in this article before tomorrow night, and then think about the plans. It's better to post in different sections if we have separate part to work on, or just add a subtitle in this section, which would make the talk page less messy. :P CynthiaZsy (talk) 20:39, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

@ CynthiaZsy Ok! I have read this article. and I will find which part of this article I want to improve before tonight. Then I will post my plan later. :-) 73.174.6.203 (talk) 15:35, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

@ CynthiaZsy I forgot to log in! Ok! I have read this article. and I will find which part of this article I want to improve before tonight. Then I will post my plan later. :-) HelloSocialComputing (talk) 15:37, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi, I am assigned to this article as well, sorry for showing up this late. I think everyone gets to modify different section is a good idea. Squidinocean (talk) 20:00, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello, due to midterm exams and another course project I didn't start to read this article until yesterday. I'll read some related materials and decide which part need to be improved. StupidProgrammer (talk) 01:11, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Does anybody think that the "fake review" example and the "system gaming" example should be moved to the "Ethic" section, because they're related to the some negative aspects of reputation management. For the "history" section, editors should focus on describing how reputation management emerge and develop(in the order of time) StupidProgrammer (talk) 17:56, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

So, everyone should choice one section of the article to modify? I want to modify the "Concepts". I have some idea about how to modify this section, and I will post my plan laterHelloSocialComputing (talk) 00:06, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

According to Good article criteria, a good article should stay focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail. However, in this section, "Concept", author gives too much unnecessary details. I think conception just needs to talk about what is reputation management. It do not need to give details about Google search result and the tactics used by reputation management firms.HelloSocialComputing (talk) 00:24, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

@StupidProgrammer I agree with you. "fake review" includes some examples, which talk about ethical grey areas.HelloSocialComputing (talk) 00:28, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

I also think some references are not formal enough, such as 8th reference. It is a link, not a formal reference. HelloSocialComputing (talk) 21:15, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi guys, sorry that I didn't appear these days, so now this article has been assigned to four people including me. After reading this article and considering it with the criteria of good articles, I agree with @StupidProgrammer's opinion on "fake review", it shouldn't belong to the history part. Besides, in order to make our modification more clearly and individually, I plan to add the block break for everyone's part. @HelloSocialComputing great job! I split your part into an independent part, so that we could comment below.

Hi guys, I have created 3 parts blow the "Decision of changes". We can discuss about this article here. When we decide what need to be modified, we can add our decision in "Decision of changes" section. HelloSocialComputing (talk) 00:30, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi, sorry for not showing up sooner. After read through the whole article, I think that in addition to what you guys have suggested, we can work on:

Concepts session. As @HelloSocialComputing mentioned, lead section should define the topic. So there is no need for another Concept session, the concept/definition of reputation management should be put in the lead session directly.

Squidinocean (talk) 21:51, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

I have added the section named "Decision of changes". Let us find 3 major changes we are going to make.HelloSocialComputing (talk) 16:37, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

I made some modifications. CynthiaZsy (talk) 05:01, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Let's make three final specific decisions. CynthiaZsy (talk) 17:21, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Much more clear plans

I have created a new section to make more clear plans. You guys can talk in this section to improve our plans.HelloSocialComputing (talk) 17:33, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Professor said that "Let reference become more formal" is not a problem, but I think there are also some problems in references. Some references' links are useless, such as No.32. So, we need to update those references' link. At the same time, we also need to find more useful articles to support this articles.HelloSocialComputing (talk) 17:33, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi I have added three changes in the next section. Everyone could modify it. CynthiaZsy (talk) 18:02, 12 November 2015 (UTC) So I noticed that we are done for the decision of changes, @HelloSocialComputing Could you kindly send a email to Rosta to inform our new changes? Thanks a lot. CynthiaZsy (talk) 18:05, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

I made some modifications below as well. About the reference, maybe we can make them more consistence? Like all follow APA standard. Squidinocean (talk) 03:22, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi guys, the professor has sent me some advices about our changes "your suggestions are still quite vague, e.g. what research are you going to read? what other references are you going to add?". We should consider it ASAP. Thanks!CynthiaZsy (talk) 04:22, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Ok, let us update our plans again.

First, what research are you going to read? The "Ethic" section only talk about the negative aspect of the reputation management. I think we also need to read some research papers, in order to find some positive examples.
Secondly, what other references are you going to add? If we want to find some positive examples, we need to read some research papers, and we have to add these research papers to the "Reference" section.HelloSocialComputing (talk) 14:03, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree with @HelloSocialComputing. What we are going to add has to be decided after plenty of search and studies. CynthiaZsy (talk) 15:45, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

I'll modify the head section and remove some significant information which should not be included in the head section.HelloSocialComputing (talk) 03:39, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

I did some searching on google scholar, and found most of the article are somehow negative. This is what I found that is neutral.

van Riel, C. (2014). Future trends in reputation management. RSM Discovery-Management Knowledge, 19(3), 5-7. [link] Squidinocean (talk) 15:50, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

I decide to send to the professor again. I wish everything is fine now. Everyone concentrates on a different part to modify. CynthiaZsy (talk) 17:45, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi guys, Professor Farzan has agreed to our decisions. So let's move on. Everyone is responsible for one part. I plan to modify "Concept"&"Example" parts. CynthiaZsy (talk) 01:43, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Begin to improve the article

I'll unify the format the of reference, in the mean time, search for images that can be used. Squidinocean (talk) 14:14, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

I'll modify the head section, and remove some significant information which should not be included in the head section.HelloSocialComputing (talk) 15:10, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi guys, I have modified some places in this article. I add some pictures related with "Online reputation management". And I also have moved the "fake reviews" to the "Ethics" section. If your have any suggestions, please contact me.HelloSocialComputing (talk) 16:29, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

@HelloSocialComputing Good job! However, I think only moving "fake reviews" into ethics section is not enough, maybe we could do more classifications. Since Ethics not only includes "the fake view", some other factors it states could also be split out. And I have modified some words in the leading part, but still unfinished. I will keep moving on it. CynthiaZsy (talk) 04:24, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

@CynthiaZsy Ok! Now, I am reading some research paper about positive reputation management.HelloSocialComputing (talk) 14:47, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Sorry for my disappearing. The third paragraph of Ethics section discuss the topic of fake review. We don't need to add a new subsection called "fake section". Otherwise, integrating them with the existing content is enough. StupidProgrammer (talk) 01:47, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi everybody. I find this article which introduces how to do reputation management at Wikipedia. I'd like to summarize this article and add it to the "Method" section. StupidProgrammer (talk) 02:11, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

And this article (which might be out of date) even introduce a situation where sometimes even negative online reviews could help your business to raise in Google search result rank. I'm not sure whether we should add it to the Justification section.

@StupidProgrammer Good job! I think we can add this situation where sometimes even negative online reputation may improve your business into the "Justification" section. Because this is a kind of the influence of the reputation management.HelloSocialComputing (talk) 13:35, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

And I have found an article talk about the positive impact of the reputation management. I will extract some sentences to support our articleHelloSocialComputing (talk) 13:35, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

I found a very interesting book which talk about positive reputation. This book named Essentials of Corporate Communication. And the page 47 talk about positive reputation. You guys can read it. If you think it is good, I will add the positive aspect of the reputation management into the "Ethics" section.HelloSocialComputing (talk) 05:18, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi, I have fixed the defunct links (14&33). And I think @HelloSocialComputing I think in the book you mentioned, it's more about reputation itself but not reputation management? If so, not sure if we should put it in this wiki page. What do other guys think? Squidinocean (talk) 16:11, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

@HelloSocialComputing Actually, I agree with @Squidinocean, the book mainly talks about the positive impact from "reputation", which could be used to illustrate the necessity of "reputation management" if you do think that book it's good :P. CynthiaZsy (talk) 20:27, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

I made several modification according to what I planed previously. You guys can check them out at my sandbox StupidProgrammer (talk) 20:46, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi there, I found a paper about "online reputation management", it helps me, maybe it's also useful to you guys. Paper-Online Reputation Management CynthiaZsy (talk) 20:51, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Good job!! I just think there are only one example about "fake reviews" which is negative. Should we add an positive example?HelloSocialComputing (talk) 22:21, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

I found a very interesting website! there are many successful cases of reputation management. I think we can use one of those cases to be a positive example to support our article. You guys can read it. HelloSocialComputing (talk) 22:46, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

I want to choose one of those successful cases to support our article. How do you think about this?HelloSocialComputing (talk) 22:47, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

I thought we are adding positive factors of reputation management rather than finding positive cases? I'm just not sure if we can find a case that has enough representative. Squidinocean (talk) 23:34, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I also have found some positive factors of reputation management. Do we need to use one case to support these positive factors.HelloSocialComputing (talk) 23:49, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Actually, reputation management can improve companies' reputation. However, some companies use methods which are unethical, and others use methods which are ethical. This article only shows the former one. I am not sure that should we add some examples about the latter one.HelloSocialComputing (talk) 00:04, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

I have finished the editing for the leading part. I'm starting to use Sandbox to continue the modification. @HelloSocialComputing What do you think if we add your findings about business cases into the "Example" part since I noticed this part presents the application of reputation management. CynthiaZsy (talk) 03:50, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

ok. I am using sandbox to modify the article too :)HelloSocialComputing (talk) 04:21, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

There are some interesting cases. And I have modified the "Ethics" section in my sandbox. If you guys have any questions, please contact me. :) HelloSocialComputing (talk) 19:01, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

@HelloSocialComputing I found this sentence in Ethics part a little bit weird. Is it just me or you guys think there is a problem in this sentence as well?

The response was company’s response was received positively and what could have turned out to be a public relations nightmare was solved and put away quickly.

Also, I think we need to add the reference for that paragraph. Squidinocean (talk) 22:36, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes! This sentence is weird. Good job! We can use the website I mentioned before as the reference for this the "Ethics" section. I have modified this section in my Sandbox.HelloSocialComputing (talk) 00:54, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Summary of CynthiaZsy: After modification on my CynthiaZsy's Sandbox, I have synced them in the article. I mainly improved three parts.

Deleted some unnecessary parts from the heading section, and added something in high level to represent the overview of the entire article.
Added one case into History part to illustrate the positive development about RM.
Specified the concept, made it more formal.

CynthiaZsy (talk) 07:16, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Summary of HelloSocialComputing: In my Sandbox, I have improved the articles in four parts:

Add a positive cases of online reputation management in the "Ethics" section, in order to let the article become more neutral.
Delete some significant information from head section, which should should display in development paragraph.
Move the "fake review" from the "history" section to the "Ethics" section.
Added two photos to this article.
Added some new references.

HelloSocialComputing (talk) 14:43, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

@HelloSocialComputing Hi I have glanced your sandbox, my modification of head section was based on yours. So I think we should discussed about it. Or you could modify it directly. (I have change this article to my version) — Preceding unsigned comment added by CynthiaZsy (talk • contribs) 19:09, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes! I will reading the lead section again. If I have any questions, I will contact with you.HelloSocialComputing (talk) 21:30, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Summary of StupidProgrammer: My modifications can be found at my Sandbox, which are synced in the article.

Add a new case in 'Example' Section about using Wikipedia as reputation management tool.
Add a news report which introduce a case in which negative review might not damage the business in 'Justification' Section.

StupidProgrammer (talk) 01:30, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Decision of changes

There should be three main changes according to professor's suggestion.

Content: Modify inappropriate content or organisation.

     - Add more information after study some related research paper. For example, reputation management should include positive and negative factors, but in this article, especially in the "Ethical" part,  the negative part is mostly concentrated. One member will be assigned to study some research papers to find positive features. And others find related research papers to improve other parts.
     - Move the 'Fake review' in 'History' section to 'Ethic' section and then integrate them into a "dilemma problems" section.
     - Modify the head section: there should be less detailed information according to the criteria. 
     - Add pictures to enrich the content.
     - Standardise the 'Concept' session.

Make the reference more verifiable.

     -  Some references' links are useless. We need to update those references' link. (The link of reference 17 and 32 are page not found. They should either be updated or removed.)
     -  Adding some references about the useful research papers that we find to support this article.  For example, there is a paper named "A social mechanism of reputation management in electronic communities.", which has a good explanation to example part. So it will be added to the reference part if we adopt it.

Format: Uniform the format of every part.