Talk:Net promoter score/Archives/2021

Mentioning criticism in the intro
I've just added another source to the Criticism section. However I think that criticism should be also mentioned shorly in the Introduction section: From a scientific point of view, the NPS is highly controversial methodologically. The concluding sentence in the introduction "Its popularity and broad use have been attributed to its simplicity and its openly available methodology." is not sufficiently reflected in my opinion.--MarTechSci (talk) 14:12, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

And I have just added a mention of the criticism in the intro. Mtfitzgerald8 (talk) 13:04, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Major update
I have added quite a lot of new content over the last few days. This includes a new 'Origins' section based on email exchanges and interviews with Fred Reichheld, Dr Laura Brooks, and others. I also added some responses to some of the criticism. All feedback welcome. Mtfitzgerald8 (talk) 13:06, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

I noticed that a user (M-Mustapha) reverted all of my changes without contacting me in any way. He noted that he believed my changes were based on personal opinion and were not referenced. I undid his reversion. And sent this message to his talk:

As far as I know I provided sources for everything I wrote. If you could be clearer on where you think the sources are missing, that would be helpful. For example, you will see from the note in the 'Origins' heading that I interviewed the original researchers, Fred Reichheld and Laura Brooks for that content, so it is well sourced. I also checked it with them before making the changes. Many of the other changes are sourced from the Net Promoter System podcast and other places, all cited. My observations on the defects in the criticism sections come from reading the articles in question. I am also a reference source for NPS information as I have written one of the reference books on the subject, have been invited more than anyone else onto the Bain Net Promoter System podcast, and work part-time for Richard Owen, former CEO of Satmetrix, co-inventors of NPS. Note that I consider it disrespectful and unethical to delete what I wrote without contacting me in any way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mtfitzgerald8 (talk • contribs) 15:40, 11 February 2021 (UTC) Mtfitzgerald8 (talk) 17:51, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

M-Mustapha reverted all of my changes again, without providing any specifics at all about what he found wanting. Vague generalities about missing references or inappropriate web page links. I need specifics to be able to add whatever is seen as missing. It is completely unacceptable to remove 100% of what I contribute because 5% needs to be improved. Mtfitzgerald8 (talk) 17:51, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

I have now started to dig further into references for each of the statements made in the article to attempt to address any impression made that anything I have written is personal opinion, rather than factual. I have started with a reference to the addition of a second open question to the NPS standard. Since Bain, Reichheld, and Satmetrix own the trademark, any statement that comes from them and defines the standard must be considered to be authoritative. Mtfitzgerald8 (talk) 13:42, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

It seems like (talk) added a section "Where are they now?" which seems unusual for Wikipedia and not really very encyclopedic; more like LinkedIn or a B-list documentary. Fred Reichheld already has an article that could contain those details ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Reichheld ) and I think the other inventors are either notable enough to get their own articles or they aren't notable enough for their current positions to be documented. So to be clear, I am proposing deleting the "Where are they now?" section. 2601:184:4A7F:7960:9858:8EA1:B88C:AA34 (talk) 20:57, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

the current article reads like promotional material
Hi everyone, I hope to make some improvements in this article over the next few days. I added the advert template because this article reads very much like entire sections were lifted verbatim from NPS promotional materials. I'm laying out some of the problems I see with the current state of the article here.

In short, I think this article can be greatly improved by making it much shorter and removing promotional language. A lot of the existing content is repetitive or inappropriate for an encyclopedic article. The extent to which the existing content has been sourced is indeed impressive, but many of the sources repeat each other, and many others are clearly promotional in nature.

Some things that stick out about this article: "My observations on the defects in the criticism sections come from reading the articles in question. I am also a reference source for NPS information as I have written one of the reference books on the subject, have been invited more than anyone else onto the Bain Net Promoter System podcast, and work part-time for Richard Owen, former CEO of Satmetrix, co-inventors of NPS."
 * The article is absurdly long for the topic.
 * Above, the editor who recently significantly expanded the article, User:Mtfitzgerald8, also volunteers that they are professionally involved in the promotion of the NPS by appearing frequently on a branded NPS podcast, and that they are also employed by the founders and owners of the NPS trademark:

Some section-specific areas for improvement: (Abulubada (talk) 02:55, 16 April 2021 (UTC))
 * The How it Works section restates information that was already stated in the introduction.
 * The Open-Ended Questions and Use of Driver Questions subsections could probably be condensed into one or two sentences, and don't need their own subsection headings.
 * The Origins section reads as if it were copied directly from NPS promotional materials, down to how it starts with "A short history of the Net Promoter Score," and moves on to "The Net Promoter Score was born."
 * A quarter of the references in this article about a proprietary commercial instrument come from the websites of the companies that sell it: 1, 9, 11, 14, 15, 17, 18, 21, and 37, indicating that some scrutiny should be used when evaluating the claims they support.