Talk:Mystery shopping/Archives/2012

Global Organisations
A link to IMSA (International Mystery Shopper Alliance) has been removed from this article without proper justification or reasoning being given in the article history by user 81.33.47.88. IMSA is a relevant organisation in this field and prior to any removal of this link again appropriate discussion should be engaged in via this forum before a consensus is reached regarding if it should remain or not and what justifications there would be for removing it. thewinchester 02:44, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism
(I had previously added a similar section to this article, but it has somehow been removed and it is no longer displayed in the history. Let's not go there).

On three separate occasions, 69.152.153.64 has made edits to this article which do not meet WP guidelines. The edits pertain to the addition of a section titled Regional Organisations and a link to [http://www.nationalassociationofmysteryshoppers.com. The National Association of Mystery Shoppers]. These changes have been reverted as they do not comply with several WP policies including WP:CORP, WP:SPAM, and WP:VAN. The user has been warned on two separate occasions (documented within their talk pages) politely to cease and desist, however the changes continue. I have on each attempt revered the article as per instructions in WP:Revert making sure to add appropriate information and details as to the reason for the revert. I will continue to monitor the article for unauthorised changes and will take all relevant action accordingly as needed. thewinchester 05:40, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Further to this, I have also added the Spam warning at the top of the article. I will keep this in place for 14 days while I monitor this to warn off any persons who may wish to add links or make inappropriate changes to this page. thewinchester 05:41, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

External Links/Overview
Can someone explain why links to www.mysteryshopsmart.com/faq.html are being tagged as vandalism? It's an informative site. 17:30 16 January 2007 (Unsigned comment left by 216.81.162.43 on 07:30, January 17, 2007)
 * There is a reasonable answer to this question. I would agree with the link being removed when placed in the context WP:NOT, specifically Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files on the grounds that the link in question adds nothing further to the topic of mystery shopper that is not already contained within the article. It could be contended that the site in question has information of use to prospective and current mystery shoppers, but WP is not about explaining to people how they do their jobs in that arena. WP is an encyclopaedia designed for the purpose of explaining topics, and if you feel that you have something to bring to the table regarding the topic then it would be best to contribute to the article, ensuring that you stick within the guidelines of WP policies including No original research. Secondly, it could be contended that the addition of this link is personal advertising going against Wikipedia is not a directory. If you wish to make this change, it would be a good idea to register and then discuss the matter here so this can be evaluated accordingly before re-adding. Thirdly, the link in question that has been removed is returning a 404 error anyway. Just for future reference i'm a long term Wikipedian and an industry accredited mystery shopper, so I know quite a lot about both topics. I keep an extreemly close eye on this article for a good reason. thewinchester 11:59, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Secret Shoplifter
I work at Sears and, in a meeting, it was explained that they have secret shoplifters. Just like secret shoppers act as customers and evaluate the employees' response, a secret shop lifer acts like they're thieving the store to see if the workers will take action in the right way.

I wanted to know if and where Wikipedia's article on the subject was. -- Is this fact ... ?  23:42, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

External links...
Ok, so I know that spam is a problem on this page. Maybe we should have a discussion about what links are appropriate to keep and which ones are not. A link to the MSPA is appropriate, I believe. The Snopes article has valuable information. One of the primary interests of people that visit this page is "how to become a mystery shopper" -- which is arguably not appropriate content for this page. Maybe there should be an external link with that information?--Bop (talk) 17:15, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * snopes is apropriate the others are Links normally to be avoided--Hu12 (talk) 17:29, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Why I erased Link
I erased a link to "How to be a Mystery Shopper." It was a piece of fluff, said nothing about the issue and then you had to give your visa number. If they wanted to put it in 'scams' that would have been fine, but not under references. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.239.132.58 (talk) 20:50, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

An official definition is required to clearify the association with the term of..
collusion--58.38.41.238 (talk) 08:10, 7 October 2009 (UTC)