Talk:Ripoff Report/Archives/2012

This is not a valid article and should be removed.
Several problems are blatant on this article and it needs to be cleaned up or removed from Wikipedia. List follows:

1. "Many users enjoy the opportunity to vent online; the site gives the impression that claims may get eventual media attention and/or legal action. The site claims to have helped consumers settle their disputes with the offending companies, and, given the high-profile nature of the Rip-off Report on several search engines, those claims carry some weight."

Where is the citation of which consumers have been helped and where are the examples needed to make this claim. While Rip-off report has had a high profile on Google, this does not hold true on other engines. Several times, searching a company on Yahoo and other sites puts the first ripoff report on page 2. This is an opinion paragraph and needs to be reworked.

2. "The site cannot differentiate between documented incidents of bad business and empty claims posted."

Unfortunately, this site can, but chooses not to. It has several posters "Charles" comes to mind who write in about any person or thing who displeases them. The site simply does not ask for proof of the problem rather than investigating a problem. This is false and needs to be deleted.

3. "One aspect of Rip-off Report that distinguishes it from similar sites is that in general, Reports are never taken down or removed."

This is in direct opposition to Rip-off Report's claims. If this is false, then it needs to be removed. If, on the other hand the site does take down reports, then the paragraph that states that it is covered by the CDA is false. Again, needs rework or deletion.

The entire of the Lawsuits section requires citation, as it sounds more like a commercial than an entry.

The overall bias of the article demands deletion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.113.228.233 (talk) 23:25, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree that this sounds like an advertisement and seems almost word-for-word the same text Magedson has used on the site to defend himself. I wouldn't be surprised if he wrote this page. It is biased and perpetuates the concept that his quest is noble when it is anything but. Palindrome13 (talk) 10:45, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I concur -- the entirety of the page reads like an advertisement to me, but especially the lawsuits section which appears to omit several significant developments and largely ignores the "extortion" allegations being made. Definitely appropriate for the advert tag. Willfe (talk) 00:56, 5 March 2009 (UTC)