Talk:EHarmony/Archive 1

Would the appropriate title be eHarmony or eHarmony.com? Rad Racer 22:09, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC) Hey, superdork, by your reasoning anyone who charges for their product is fraudulent. Get a life.I have subscribed to the service and love it--put $50 where your mouth is and then have an informed opinion.
 * I heard rumors that eHarmony is a con, is their any notoriety of this? --SuperDude 02:14, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I've heard similar rumors, that they're really no better/more accurate with their matches than any of the dozens of other matchmaking sites out there. eHarmony's biggest difference from the other sites seems to be their vastly superior marketing strategy (tv ads, infomercials, etc.). Dr Archeville 19:09, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I just obtained a new opinion about eHarmony, since it charges money, I find it to be fraudulent now. --SuperDude 00:36, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

800 Number hard to find
At various times, the article has listed their 1-800 number for customer service. At other times, the number has been removed. If the number were listed in plain sight on their web site, then listing it here would be pointless. But it's not. I challenge you to find that number anywhere on their web site: I wasn't able to! Because of this, the stated basis for the recent deletion doesn't apply. It is of encyclopedic and practical value to list this number, especially since people need it if they want to cancel. For these reasons, I'm putting the number back up. If you disagree, please explain your reasoning here and gain consensus before acting, so we can avoid edit wars. ThAtSo 18:04, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I disagree. You've explained the practical value of the customer service number, which is not a strong consideration (quite a bit of practical or useful content is excluded per WP:NOT), but have not supported your claim that it is appropriate for an encyclopedia article. Based on your argument, this is how-to material, which is explicitly addressed in the policy. Dancter 21:04, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Please take a look at the customer service section of Amazon.com, which starts with:
 * Amazon.com does not publish its toll-free customer service number (+1-800-201-7575) on its own web site.

In the case of both Amazon and eHarmony, the fact that a company has a toll-free customer service number that is not well-publicized is itself encyclopedic, as is the number.

I also took a good look a WP:NOT, especially the "Wikipedia is not the Yellow Pages" item, which is the one that comes closest to applying. It still fails to apply because this number can't be looked up in the Yellow Pages or the company web site, so we're not duplicating a directory.

I feel that this successfully addresses your argument, so we should keep the phone number in the article. ThAtSo 21:35, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Based on a quick examination, I would disagree with the Amazon.com inclusion, as well. It should be noted that the Amazon.com article does not seem to have been placed though any quality review such as assessment rating, peer review, or GA/FA nomination. It's not strong indicator of Wikipedia consensus for this type of content. This is somewhat related to WP:INN. In addition, that it's not duplicating an existing directory resource is somewhat missing the point, as it is still serving the same purpose—and at the expense of things such as encyclopedic balance, tone, style, and organization. Dancter 22:12, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

It can't possibly serve the purpose of a directory if no directory contains the number. If the number were publicized, there'd be no motive for repeating it here. Since Amazon.com has been around longer and is a more popular article (and more popular company), I think it sets a far precedent for what the Wikipedia consensus is. It is unclear how reporting on the existence of this number harms this article. ThAtSo 22:30, 4 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't quite understand your reasoning, and I have obviously failed to communicate my point regarding WP:NOT. A directory is not defined by content from other directories. This isn't even about WP:NOT specifically, even though it's what I mentioned in my original edit summary. A customer service number is of negligible historical relevance for an article of this size, does not contribute to an balanced overall understanding of the subject to a general reader, and its usefulness is only limited to those who use the service. Granted, it's not terribly accessible informationWikipedia is an encyclopedia, first and foremost.
 * As far as popularity goes, Amazon.com is actually very sedate in terms of talk page discussion and number of article revisions, especially for an article that's been around so long, so I would still disagree with you there. In any case, any serious arguments should be judged on their own merits, and based on policy, rather than other articles. While reporting on the existence of this number isn't harmful in the traditional sense of factuality or neutrality, I feel it damages the quality of the article as an encyclopedia entry.
 * The external links section is for links to web content that is supplementary to the encylopedic coverage. The customer service number is not web content, and probably isn't well-equipped as a general informational resource. Dancter 01:12, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, most of my comments no longer apply, given that the information was repurposed as criticism. Dancter 01:20, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

It is obvious from this discussion here, the critism is factual information and a valid critism and therefore it should definitely be included. This discussion is also prima facia evidence that it is the kind of information people expect to find in this entry. Is there a way to making it harder for people to remove it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.38.112.149 (talk) 21:41, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

People continue to point out that Consumers have difficulty finding the company's phone number (1-800-263-6133) to speak to a live representative. And that the phone number for their headquarters in Pasadena, CA is (626)-795-4814. This is as valid a criticism as much as they do not match gays. Both issues have to do with company policy, if you remove one you should remove both. The purpose of the encyclopedia is to provide broad hence encyclopedic information on a subject. This isses here is historical in nature and informs one as to its policies. If policies are selectively deleted one can not form an unbiased broad understanding of them. Additionally, the arguement that Wikipedia is not a directory is flawed for two reasons. One, the purpose of the information is speculation and erroneous speculation at that, since the comment is not in the nature of a directory listing. Secondly, reason for someone looking at information in an articles is not a reason for removing or adding it. Removing it damages the article as an encyclopedic entry because the reader is no longer aware of this policy issue that existed biasing the article and precluding one from all the facts. The removal arguments are not objective but based on personal preference. It is not our job to determine the purpose of what the reader will do with the information but to report it accurately. This is factual information that should remain so that the reader can determine for themselves what to do with it.


 * The fact that the number is not listed, and that this is cited criticism should not be removed. I did not add the number. I don't care if the number is there. But there is no valid argument for removal of the criticism itself. --130.245.193.204 (talk) 00:50, 5 February 2009 (UTC)