Talk:Shop at Bid

Please stop adding the daft "criticisms section" no matter if you refernce bid Up's Terms and conditions it cannot be clased as a critcism. Its pure conjecture to talk about things being "expensive" as phoning in on premium rate, having products sent by a flat rate P and P is how the channel works. There is nothing on the Argos wikipedia page tiele "Criticisms" you have to walk to argos which expends at least 240 calories and often get a bus which can cost anything from 80p.62.189.241.185 11:47, 6 December 2006 (UTC) Mr Wikster
 * I've just altered this section as its completely random (and broken). It's a common criticism of viewership about the channel's so-called "hidden costs" (even though they're clearly displayed on the screen) and I think its worthy of a mention, but it doesn't need links to the T&Cs of bid.tv (or even a link to an old ASA ruling). NKTP 23:52, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

You need to source criticisms please add a source or the section should be re-named costs of buying.

All the criticisms in the article are totally valid and well sourced. ASA rulings are needed as they show how the company artificially inflates starting prices. Such high starting prices are essential to the format of the channel, so this ASA ruling is fundamentally important to understanding the way Bid.tv works. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shakehandsman (talk • contribs) 01:30, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

bid tv, not Bid TV. Bid.tv, Bid tv
If anyone sees the incorrect form of bid tv in the article, please can you correct it. It is annoying and confusing to have the conflicting spellings. Bilky asko (talk) 19:53, 18 January 2008 (UTC)