Talk:CitizenShipper

Add sources
Here are some additional sentences and sources to consider adding. I just tagged a lot of sources at UShip so I am sensitive to the weakness of sources in this industry; but I think there is still a pretty clear distinction between those reliable in judgment and those not. If I don't hear from anyone in a week or two I may add them myself.
 * In "Partnerships", add a new paragraph at the end: "The annual Remnants of the Past Vintage Show in San Jose, California, offers buyers a porter station for shipping assistance, where CitizenShipper and UShip are recommended options. CitizenCourier partners with an A rating include Fort Lauderdale Moving & Storage. "
 * In "Environmental protection", add at the end or anywhere: "CitizenShipper and Shiply were ranked as mensajerías sostenibles (sustainable couriers) in the efficiency text No Somos Hormigas by Fernando Casado et al.

Three years without complaints
The statements of "no complaints" is refutable with evidence gathered in a simple Google Search for "CitizenShipping reviews." There have been many significant complaints/negative reviews posted on various websites, with responses from the CitizenShipping (henceforth CS or the Company) being unprofessional and unproductive despite evidence presented, deferring responsibility to customer error based on 12+ pages of "fine print" in well hidden "terms and conditions," several of which are contrary to what appears on certain Company web pages. Interestingly, these "Terms and Conditions" are only available after you enter your personal information (Name, address, phone, SSN, Credit Card #) by performing several clicks on links next to(already pre-chosen)"I Agree" boxes on sign up pages many people would not notice because it is not required you check it yourself, indicating you know they exist and have taken the required 20-30 minutes to read several documents, none of which can be downloaded for future reference in writing, as required with a bank, credit card, or other financial services entity.

Clicking on several almost hidden links and reading through the 12+ pages of documents is the only way to find out about the hidden fees ...'''and an additional (illegal) threat of punitive financial action. ''' Citizen Shipper is the middle man between the person needing shipping service and the transport. CS is the pass-through for all financial transactions and funds involved in working with them. They allege to offer transportation of goods connections based on a "sustainability" theory; to save fuel by enlisting what might otherwise be empty space in transit for positive environmental impact satisfying a need for small scale shipping/transport. CS collects fees for this in 3 ways that are not clear on the webpages, only in "the fine print" after clicking on the almost hidden links. The fine print notes;
 * 1) a recurring $25 monthly membership/subscription fee for anyone wanting to access or post an ad which you can allegedly "cancel at anytime" by contacting "customer service."
 * 2) a percentage from the person needing shipping service/posting an ad
 * 3) a percentage from the provider of transportation.
 * 4) there is also a statement that you give CS the right to a $1000 fine for each negative comment you might author for "defamation" and "loss of business"

The personal information such as your SSN and credit card# for alleged "background and credit checks" has no stated limitations on use (or abuse, CS doesn't specify which agency(s)they enlist, and it is only stated in "the fine print" that your credit card will be charged for the above fees.

All financial financial transactions pass through CitizenShipper, and depend on their "customer service." These two aspects have been the foundation for all complaints.

Some of the complaints posted online are by providers who did not get paid for services they provided, and others by people who paid for services who did not get refunded for cancellations by providers who withdrew after not being paid for those previous transactions. Others were for items not delivered (which the Company refused responsibility for) and others for the fees on both ends that are not made clear on the web pages.

Many more were for cancellations of the monthly fees for "subscription/membership" that were not followed through upon by CS as it states on the web page, despite proof of those requests provided to the BBB and other advocacy sites. This is a perennial problem with online subscriptions that nets thousands of dollars/day in profits for these kinds of companies. The subscription/membership providers know small claims is useless for interstate disputes, so the only legal recourse is to write to the overburdened Attorney General, gather others who've been wronged, hire a lawyer to file a class action suit. You must also remember to address it with your bank or credit card company, once you discover the cancellation has not been addressed, which is usually AFTER the "90 day refund period offered by CS," meaning you have to order a new credit card to keep them from continuing to charge you, and they keep the money already paid to them that's in dispute because the bank usually writes it off.

Replies to (reasonable)complaints by CitizenShipping were perfunctory and inconsistent, one even citing the personal reason for lack of customer service as "maternity leave." In cases where there was any concession, it was for a small percentage of what was in dispute with and offer of partial credit towards "future services," claiming the limited liability in "the fine print."

There were several assertions over the years that CitizenShipper copies and pastes ads from UShip and other competitors to make themselves look busier, and it is still accurate as of 9/10/2016.

CitizenShipping also claims approval by the Better Business Bureau on their website, yet Googling them on the BBB website states they are not appproved.

All of these practices are abusive, some are illegal, and the threat to silence complaints/free speech via an illegal $1000 fine per compliant is also unconstitutional.

These very real concerns provide a significant and sobering ethical/legal contrast to the alleged ideal stated as the foundation for this business, and reveal disingenuous and legally questionable aspects of doing business that the public should be aware of.

Sustainable integrity (talk) 02:24, 12 September 2016 (UTC)    

This statement (not claim) was made by Courier in its own voice. DGG and Stalwart111 are saying that it's obvious the magazine is just quoting Obousy rather than using journalistic oversight, but I don't believe we can make this assumption automatically. The interviewer is indicating by its presentation a separate review of self-published primary sources and thus it should be a reliable secondary source. In the absence of evidence we just attribute statements properly, but this is not what our text says.

I would like to delete "claimed to have" from the sentence, or have some similar edit made. We could also remove it to talk temporarily. I am looking for additional information about the statement. Frieda Beamy (talk) 15:33, 20 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Where else would the author of that article get information about a claim like that but from the owner with whom he is conducting an interview? To suggest otherwise is a bit silly. Are you actually suggesting the company opened their primary sources (every piece of customer feedback received over the three-year period) so that they could read them all and come to that conclusion themselves? C'mon! It's kind of a moot point anyway. I still think that section should be removed. It's completely unencyclopaedic anyway and contributes to the feeling this is just an advertisement. Wikipedia isn't the place for client testimonials.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 23:15, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Interesting view of primary sources. I'm suggesting that neither of us knows (or feels) what sources Courier looked at to make its statement, or what proof it requested, and ordinary process is to attribute the credible statement to the entity who took responsibility for it. To do otherwise, as the article does now, would be to say something unverifiable and speculative, wouldn't it? Also see WP:CLAIM please. Frieda Beamy (talk) 23:27, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, we don't know but we can take a pretty good guess and the point is that whatever "proof it requested", it requested it from the company. We need to use a bit of WP:COMMONSENSE - we know how the press works. An author doesn't approach a subject and start by asking, "Is there any chance you could provide evidence for my suggestion that the company hasn't had any complaints?" No, the company says, "you know, we've had no complaints in the last three years" and a good journalist responds, "interesting; can you show me the evidence", and then writes that the company has had no complaints. That's fine, but it's obvious that's a claim from the company and to suggest otherwise in Wikipedia's voice makes us seem dense. But again, we're discussing the wording of something I don't think should be there at all. I don't think we need that section. Leave the testimonials for the company's own website where they can give that quote whatever context they wish. They aren't held to the same non-promotional requirements as us, nor should they be. If the aim here is not to promote the company (it isn't) then why to we need glowing testimonials anyway? I don't recall that being something we generally include in other corporate articles.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 00:28, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
 * We don't call it a claim because of WP:CLAIM. We attribute it to Courier because of WP:ATTRIB. Common sense is that we don't substitute our common sense about what we believe happened for what is verifiable. So it may possibly be a claim from the company, but at the same time it's definitely a statement from a reliable source and should be handled as one. Why don't you move to talk whatever counts as "glowing testimonial" to you, so we can dissect what is encyclopedic detail. As it stands it's easy for other editors to get a content dispute confused with the notability question we settled a long time back now. Frieda Beamy (talk) 23:03, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on CitizenShipper. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140714193727/http://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/freight/freight_analysis/faf/faf2_reports/reports7/index.htm to http://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/freight/freight_analysis/faf/faf2_reports/reports7/index.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 07:20, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 02:51, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Citizenshipper-logo-blue.svg

Safety of Clients Pets
While citizenshipper encourages that pet transporters register withbthe USDA, they truly care nothing about the plethora of its drivers who are USDA registered, but blatantly disregard USDA regulations. 47.198.107.17 (talk) 22:10, 9 February 2024 (UTC)