Talk:Comparison of free credit monitoring services

Untitled
How about instead of deleting a valuable page, you propose a way to make this page work? Should I put it as a subpage of the "Credit Score" page? This is valuable information -- there's a lot of confusion out there about what sites are legitimately free and where there's a catch. BamukaDelish (talk) 14:04, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Can you explain, with reference to WP:NOT, or more specifically WP:NOTDIR and WP:NOTGUIDE, why exactly is this material encyclopedic? Tim Song (talk) 14:55, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * In addition, it seems to me that it's WP:SYNTHESIS as it stands. Tim Song (talk) 14:59, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It's material enough to have a section of the Credit score (United States) page and there's major confusion amongst consumers on this topic. There should be a trusted reference that people can turn to in order to understand what's the real scoop on these offers and websites. Wikipedia is that source for many people. Plus, many of these sites have their own Wikipedia page because they've been deemed relevant enough. It would be helpful to bring these pages together in one place for big picture and comparison purposes. BamukaDelish (talk) 16:01, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't believe the sources to be WP:SYNTHESIS because they're not backing up a fact together, rather a third-party source was added to the first-party source in some cases as additional evidence of the stated facts. One source could be omitted where two sources are listed and still back up the facts. BamukaDelish (talk) 16:04, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, though IMHO it still fails WP:NOTDIR and the quotes around the free, which rather strongly suggests that it is not free, is OR. Since someone else AfD'd it, that's now the better venue for any additional discussion. Tim Song (talk) 16:19, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Added lead and category. As far as notability, I believe that issue was debated with no consensus. BamukaDelish (talk) 21:39, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Renaming page
This page should have its name changed slightly to show that it relates specifically to the United States. Several of the credit reference agencies listed operate in other countries such as the UK, and the page title does not show that it is US-specific. NFH (talk) 11:38, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Useful page. Thanks!
Might I suggest also including a section comparing alternatives for *daily* credit monitoring? 70.113.72.73 (talk) 17:41, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Defining "bare"
What constitutes a "bare" "Report type?"

References 3, 4 and 5 (current) link to the homepage for each of the respective websites; however there's nothing that there that immediately defines what "bare" means.

Moreover, Googling "bare" on each site (e.g., "site:credit.com bare" [sans quotes]) does not explain the meaning of "bare" in the context used in this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Panth0r (talk • contribs) 21:21, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Cost of credit score
Is it still true that credit scores can be purchased for $7.95? The free TransUnion credit report that I got a few minutes ago has a link: "Your Credit Report doesn't come with a Score. Get your Credit Score now!" Clicking the link takes you to a page that offers a $1.00 credit score when you sign up for a 7-day trial of their $17.95/month service, with no mention of a $7.95 no-strings-attached purchase. Peter Chastain  [habla, por favor]  09:04, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Australia
Australia is a few years behind the US and a number of free credit scoring websites have launched Credit Savvy and GetCreditScore.com.au for example, as well as the three major credit reporting bodies in Australia. Would it be appropriate to add a table to this page covering Australia or would it be better to start a new page? I have a potential COI as I work for Credit Savvy, but am happy to draft up a table in my sandbox for peer review before publishing.Alex at CreditSavvy (talk) 01:07, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Excluding trials
The "Credit card required?" column was originally put in place to indicate which services required you to give them your credit card number before they would give you your credit score. These services usually gave you a free score when you signed up but then charged your credit card if you did not cancel within a week/month. It appears this column has now been taken over to mean that you have to have a credit card account with the company before they will give you your credit score. Originally anyone could use any service on this list. I'm not sure services that are limited to those with accounts at those companies should be on this list. They are not "free credit report websites", they are companies that issue credit cards and give their members access to their credit reports/scores. If others believe they should stay, they need to be better delineated. --Pascal666 23:26, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree. All 'cardholders only' websites are not freely accessible to anybody. Also note, the numbers of credit card companies and credit unions offering free report summaries and scores has grown by hundreds in the last few years.. Would like to have another opinion before removal. JBX (talk) 18:26, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Can others please comment on whether they agree trials and cardholders-only services should be excluded? If so, the current Equifax post-hack service should be excluded too, as it's technically a (one-year) trial. JBX (talk) 10:04, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I like what you've done with the place. Good job.  --Pascal666 16:43, 16 September 2017 (UTC)