Talk:Yelp/Archive 4

Request Edit GA edits
To avoid any remote appearance of impropriety, there are some edits related to the "Good Article" review I would like to request be reviewed and considered by a disinterested editor.


 * Suggest removing the very last paragraph of the Community section as general trimming. (see GA review feedback)
 * Suggest adding the content below to the end of the second paragraph of the "Alleged manipulation" section as the latest update after "filed an appeal."

"In September 2014 the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals voted unanimously to uphold the case's dismissal, finding that even if Yelp did manipulate reviews to favor advertisers, this would not fall under the court's legal definition of extortion.  "

CorporateM (Talk) 06:00, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Suggest moving "Businesses can also update contact information, hours and other basic listing information or add special deals.[8][13]" to the Features section and merging the rest of the "Interactions" section into the summary at the top of the "Relationship with businesses" section until we find a better structure for the section.
 * Suggest removing the See Also section. Paypal Mafia is more relevant for the CEO's page than here and I think Treedial is just spam.
 * ✅, mostly. I kept foursquare in the see also section (if it is linked in the body let me know and I'll think about taking it out entirely) and made some copy-edits. Protonk (talk) 14:32, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Recent edits
The last couple edits appear to be unsourced original research (also redundant with sourced content in the article) and what looks like vandalism? Not quite the kind of blatant vandalism I can revert with a COI; does someone mind taking a look as to whether to revert? CorporateM (Talk) 00:26, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * user:HaeB took care of it. CorporateM (Talk) 15:58, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

New sources / recent events
I am on the distribution list for Yelp's internal media coverage reports. When I spot a new source/event that may warrant inclusion, I'll be using this space to store them. CorporateM (Talk) 15:46, 31 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Not included in draft shared below - just says Yelp "expressed an interest" in acquiring Tablelog, according to Tablelog. Seems too trivial to include, though if someone disagrees they can add it. CorporateM (Talk) 15:09, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Not included in draft shared below - just says Yelp "expressed an interest" in acquiring Tablelog, according to Tablelog. Seems too trivial to include, though if someone disagrees they can add it. CorporateM (Talk) 15:09, 5 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Not included in draft shared below, as it's just a minor update of a judge ruling in Yelp's favor not to dismiss the case (it mentions a prior ruling favoring the other side). Probably best to wait until a final ruling is passed. I'm leaving it here in case another editor disagrees CorporateM (Talk) 15:30, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Not included in draft shared below, as it's just a minor update of a judge ruling in Yelp's favor not to dismiss the case (it mentions a prior ruling favoring the other side). Probably best to wait until a final ruling is passed. I'm leaving it here in case another editor disagrees CorporateM (Talk) 15:30, 5 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Some content on Google Books Preview, but need to see about an inter-library loan to obtain the full text. CorporateM (Talk) 15:54, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Some content on Google Books Preview, but need to see about an inter-library loan to obtain the full text. CorporateM (Talk) 15:54, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Request edit
It's been about 3 months since this article obtained the "Good Article" rank and many new sources have emerged since then. I also noticed the article still needs some copyediting, we could probably do with fewer sections via consolidation and a few issues like a spam link and other misc stuff have showed up. I've put together some proposed updates, tweaks and misc edits at User:CorporateM/Yelp using bold and strikeouts to indicate suggested edits. If a disinterested editor could review and approve/decline/discuss, I would be greatly appreciative of your time. There are some very minor edits (periods, commas and the like) that are not indicated in the draft.

As I was re-visiting the article, I also took a look at the source regarding Galbraith, which I think would be worth re-visiting in a separate discussion.CorporateM (Talk) 16:02, 5 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Couple comments: Many businesses fraudulently write reviews on their own businesses, - sounds a bit harsher/more negative than what is there already.
 * The text is actually the exact same; in both versions it says "fraudulently write reviews on their own business." However, looking at a thesaurus, "fake" comes to mind as a softer alternative. CorporateM (Talk) 09:33, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * That's not my issue. The old version starts with "Yelp has had conflicts with business owners reviewed on the site," (focusing on Yelp, and suggesting the the conflicts are mutual) whereas "Many businesses fraudulently write reviews on their own businesses" focuses on the businesses and thus appears to absolve Yelp of any wrongdoings. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:43, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Aww - I thought that was redundant with the prior sentence: "According to BusinessWeek, Yelp has "always had a complicated relationship with small businesses."[2] which expresses mutual conflict. There's actually more text there devoted to the complaints of business owners than Yelp. However it's a pretty trivial thing (the current is fine) so maybe it would be more practical to just leave it how it is now in the currently live article? CorporateM (Talk) 19:49, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Or reword it slightly, perhaps? To avoid the redundancy — Crisco 1492 (talk) 20:53, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * How about that? CorporateM (Talk) 21:08, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I like it. Okay, I'll leave this open for a bit and see if anyone else wants to weigh in. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 21:26, 8 January 2015 (UTC)


 * and make spa appointments. - Perhaps appointments for spas?
 * ✅ CorporateM (Talk) 09:33, 8 January 2015 (UTC)


 * internet-savvy adults 18-25 - insert "aged" — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:42, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ CorporateM (Talk) 09:33, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I have reviewed the changes planned by CorporateM. Feel free to go ahead and implement them yourself, they are in line with WP:NPOV. SamWilson989 (talk) 01:24, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking a look user:SamWilson989. Currently the Conflict of Interest Guideline requires that an editor with a financial connection to the subject of the article, not directly edit the page on controversial topics. While most of the edits are copyediting, there are some additions that have to do with lawsuits and whatnot that would fall under that category, where I am not allowed to edit, lest it give the impression of impropriety or manipulation. Typically what I do though is create an annotated draft like the one you saw, than once there is consensus to implement it, I'll go ahead and clear up the annotations (like I just did), so it's easy to copy/paste the draft into article-space without doing each edit individually. Of course if you're not comfortable pasting in someone else's work, than there's no obligation to either. CorporateM (Talk) 05:33, 12 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Sure, I'll implement the edit myself if that's what you want, though it may have to be later today for that to happen SamWilson989 (talk) 07:28, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:NORUSH. If you can't get to it until later this week, that's fine too. Thanks for chipping in! CorporateM (Talk) 07:48, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

I added a brief update of the San Diego case, based on the ars technica article. Interesting. Coretheapple (talk) 18:40, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks @User:Coretheapple. I added your update to the draft, so it wouldn't be lost in a copy/paste. You'll see some notes above on why I didn't include it originally, but it's one of those nuance issues different editors handle differently, when it comes to recent/ongoing events. CorporateM (Talk) 18:57, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Yelp's business model is (apparently) extortion
A July 2 / 2015 article on Zerohedge about Yelp's CEO "gives up trying to find a buyer for the company" elicited the following comment about the company: "Yelp is absolute horsesh1t for businesses.  I have a buisness....and these f*cks harass the sh1t out of me to advertise...and if you don't pay them, they "Hide" the good reveiws, and post the not so good ones. We have 31 good reveiews that are "Filtered".  If you go to the bottom of the page of most yelp businesses reveiws...down in the corner you can find a really small button that says "Filtered Reveiws".  You click that...OH look...lots of good reviews hidden from the main site. Then when they call, they say they can work with you to get your GOOD "Filtered" reviews taken out of the "Filtered" area.  We even have customers come back for their 2nd or 3rd time and say "Did you see the review I left...thanking you for what you did..?" And there it is...lost in the "Filtered" section. This is blackmail. F*ck them...I hope they crash and burn just like Facef*ck." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.67.109.182 (talk) 12:12, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Recent edits request
I just noticed the following was recently added to the page analyzing fluctuations in the company's stock price:

"After a precipitous drop from over $100 to $50 over three months in early 2014, by May there were sympathetic reviews indicating it had been adequately corrected and less sympathetic reviews referring to its valuation as "ridiculous"  based on forward price–sales ratio analysis: "revenue of $1.39 billion by 2019 ...  gives it a forward price-to-sales ratio of 3. ... If we discount 15% for share appreciations ... and 5% for the dilution we actually find out that Yelp's forward price-to-sales ratio is actually 9 even if it meets all the analyst goals."" The first source is written by a Forbes "Contributor" and I don't believe the ups and downs of stock prices is normally included. Can we trim this?

I also noticed the following was added and sourced to a "columnist" Yelp also came into criticism by the Los Angeles Times in 2014 for the practice of selling competitor's ads to run on top of business listings, and allegedly offering to have the ads removed for a $75 monthly fee. (source This is redundant with the first paragraph of the section and I don't think it's worthwhile to list each individual case in which a small business makes similar allegations. Also suggest trimming.

CorporateM (Talk) 16:21, 1 April 2015 (UTC)


 * The first one definitely needed to be fixed. Just a lot of financial mumbo-jumbo and yes, the sourcing was bad. We can make a reference to the stock price declining if it is sourced to something better than this. Not sure about the second point you raise. Coretheapple (talk) 13:36, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks . For the second point, the source says at the bottom that it's a column. However, taking a closer look at it, I didn't realize it does seem to be a different allegation than the ones already covered. This one is about removing competitors' advertising from their profile for a fee, which is legitimately one of the features Yelp offers for "enhanced listings" I also found no consensus skimming RSN to see if columns are considered RS'. This discussion says no, while six years ago here the honorable argued in favor of a column source. So perhaps it is fine.   CorporateM (Talk) 15:38, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * My quote in 2008 was not whether a column could be used as a source, but whether a column published in the format of a blog 2was to be judged as a blog or a column. That was relatively new st the time, but now, 7 years later, it is recognized that most columns are published that way. A column is by definition the opinion of a single person rather than the considered view of the news staff as a whole, and the responsibility for it is basically the reputation of the columnist, and needs to be reported in the name of the columnist, not just the name of the paper in which it is published--but that some columnists can be very reliable.  The  other link is in respect to one particular columnist who  was held non-reliable (albeit without substantial discussion).  It think the rule is basically very simple in one sense--it depends on the actual source-- and tin another sense complicated, because one must examine the reliability of the actual source for the actual material. I have no knowledge of this particular columnist. If, as CM says, this is a standard feature of their service one would expect better documentation.  DGG ( talk ) 17:03, 23 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes I don't see any problem with either that passage or its sourcing. This is a staff columnist for the Los Angeles Times. Coretheapple (talk) 17:56, 23 April 2015 (UTC)


 * RSN discussion is here. Seems to show no consensus one way or another. Coretheapple believes the column is reliable, because it is written by a journalist from the publication; said columnists are not subject to editorial control from the newspaper. I suggested leaving a link to RSN here for whatever random editor responds to the Request Edit in a few months to do whatever they feel is right.  CorporateM (Talk) 22:38, 8 May 2015 (UTC)


 * "News organizations", which is part of the "Identifying reliable sources" guideline is clear, "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact." While it may be the guideline is wrong, it is better to get consensus to change it before beginning to use columns as reliable sources.  TFD (talk) 01:02, 9 May 2015 (UTC)


 * CorporateM is not quite fully expressing my views on this so I shall do so. It is not just that this appears in the LA TImes. This work that we are discussing here was not simply "editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces." What we are doing is relaying the content of reporting of facts by a notable journalist, David Lazarus. While he does have an opinion which he expresses, we are not mentioning it (though we could, if we attribute it to him). Now, if this was a tabloid, or if Lazarus was noted for his anti-Yelp views or for twisted and stupid reporting on Yelp, we clearly have an obligation to take that under consideration. The former is clearly not the case; as for the latter, is he? Overall I find it a bit irritating that people are treating this like an opinion column and not what it was, which was a reported piece by a notable journalist in a notable news organization, relaying facts that belong in this article. Now as for the treatment of it, just to be clear on that point, I think the current reference to it appears to be fine. Coretheapple (talk) 16:11, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia's definition of Column (periodical) says "What differentiates a column from other forms of journalism is that... it explicitly contains the author's opinion or point of view." Wikipedia mentions his opinion by calling it out as criticism. Your argument is that it's reliable for facts, not opinions, but the policy cited by the four deuces says the opposite, that opinion content is "rarely reliable for statements of fact", but may be for the author's opinion, even when authored by a professional journalist. I think The Four Deuces' point seems to be supported by current policy.
 * Personally, I absolutely despise the argument that a source is reliable for the opinion of the author. All sources, including press releases, primary sources, etc. are reliable accounts of the author's opinion; it's a cop-out for trying to justify an un-reliable source that we see at RSN all the time. It's almost always a weight or NPOV issue if not an RS issue. I can't believe we have this argument codified somewhere as policy, but so long as that is the will of our policies... CorporateM (Talk) 17:49, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The passage about "rarely reliable for statements of fact" relates to staff editorials, not columns written by reporters, and the policy itself which even allows blogs, a lesser form of creature in journalism than a newspape. See WP:NEWSBLOG, which notes that "several newspapers, magazines, and other news organizations host columns on their web sites that they call blogs. These may be acceptable sources if the writers are professionals, but use them with caution because the blog may not be subject to the news organization's normal fact-checking process." This is in fact a column, not a blog, written by a notable journalist in the Lost Angeles Times. In any event, we are having an abstract discussion here. Do you have any specific outstanding request concerning this passage? Coretheapple (talk) 21:31, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

and I started researching this with an RfC in mind, but in taking a look at current guidance on the reliable sources policy, I think it can be hammered out.

A couple relevant policy excerpts:
 * 1) Identifying reliable sources says "Some news outlets host interactive columns they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professional journalists... and the blog is subject to the news outlet's full editorial control." The author is David Lazarus, who is a professional journalist. The column is probably subject to the same rules as a "column called a blog"
 * 2) Identifying reliable sources also says "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact." Editorials and columns are both opinion pieces written by journalists. This policy is also most likely relevant.

If it is a primary source as alleged by numer 2, it shouldn't be used

These two policy excerpts taken together seem to suggest the source is fine, so long as it includes the author's opinions only and is attributed to the author. Therefore, I would suggest something like:
 * " Yelp also came into criticism by the Los Angeles Times columnist David Lazarus also criticized Yelp in 2014 for the practice of selling competitor's ads to run on top of business listings, and allegedly offering to have the ads removed for a $75 monthly fee as part of a paid feature.source

In this way, all of the factual statements are verified by Yelp's own website and some common sense. They do in fact run ads from competitors and do offer a paid option (Enhanced Profiles), where one of the features are to remove competitor advertising. Then the opinion of the columnist is included with attribution, without including factual claims from the column such as the $75 price-tag. Thoughts? CorporateM (Talk) 19:24, 10 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Ugh, actually if it is a primary source as alleged by number 2, that would make it unacceptable. Maybe we should do an RFC? CorporateM (Talk) 19:29, 10 July 2015 (UTC)


 * You can do whatever you wish, but frankly I'm getting weary of your hairsplitting and wikilawyering over this manifestly acceptable material. Coretheapple (talk) 20:27, 10 July 2015 (UTC)


 * It does not meet 1. Sure all columnists are journalists, but the issue is whether they are writing news articles or columns.  The source clearly says "David Lazarus' column runs Tuesdays and Fridays."  Writers of news blogs otoh must document their sources and use double-sourcing, and the editors may have their facts checked.  Any errors found after publication are then reported in the corrections section and/or on the news blog.  TFD (talk) 22:29, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

A few updates
A few requested updates: CorporateM (Talk) 16:21, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) Suggest adding to the Community section just after "Reviewers may also be motivated by badges and honors, such as being the first to review a new location,[10] or by praise and attention from other users.[65]" something like the following: "Some users post reviews as a matter of protest or support of the businesses political views; Yelp attempts to filter these.
 * 2) Suggest adding at the very end of the Features main section: "In March 2014, Yelp added features for ordering and scheduling manicures, flowers, golf and legal consultations, among other things, through Yelp. "
 * 3) Suggest adding as an external link:
 * 4) Bloomberg says the Yelp Elite Squad was founded in 2005, whereas the LA Times says Yelp started throwing parties for members in 2005, but the Elite Squad wasn't found until 2006. I would go with the LA Times, since they are more specific.
 * 5) Suggest adding to the end of corporate history: "In June 2015, Yelp published a study alleging Google was altering search results to benefit its own online services.  "
 * Done 3. Questions for point 3 and 4: what's the point of added the external link? Could you please prepare a suggested wording for number 4? — Chris Woodrich (talk) 02:40, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
 * For number 4, in my opinion I would go with something like "Yelp began throwing parties for members in 2005 and founded the Yelp Elite squad in 2006". I support the LA Times source as being accurate, because it sounds like a more detailed clarification over the over-simplified version from Bloomberg. For the External link, I'm not attached to it, but generally speaking one of the uses for External links is for sources that can't be used in the References section. If someone is interested in the subject, it's useful to see Yelp and a lawyer for the plaintiff debate the issue, but as an interview it can't be used as a reliable source. (again, not attached) CorporateM (Talk) 17:09, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Alright. I'd probably label the EL though. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:37, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Request for commment
Is the following sentence acceptable (NPOV, not undue, reliably sourced, etc.): "Yelp also came into criticism by the Los Angeles Times in 2014 for the practice of selling competitor's ads to run on top of business listings, and allegedly offering to have the ads removed for a $75 monthly fee.(source)

Background:
 * 1) The source is a column written by professional journalist David Lazarus
 * 2) According to the Wikipedia article on Opinion piece columns represent the opinion of the author, whereas editorials represent the opinion of the publication
 * 3) WP:USERGENERATED says that many blogs are essentially columns and "may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professional journalists"
 * 4) WP:NEWSORG says that "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact."

Number 3 seems to suggest there is a possibility the column is acceptable, since it's written by a journalist. Number 4 seems to suggest that is is a primary source for the author's opinion even if it is written by a journalist and would therefore be undue/a bad use of a primary source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CorporateM (talk • contribs)

Discussion

 * This has been addressed before, but CorporateM, a COI editor, can't accept that and keeps pushing the issue repetitively, in a nitpicky wikilawyering fashion, apparently until he gets the answer that satisfies him and Yelp. There is absolutely, positively, unequivocally nothing wrong with the text that is the subject of this totally unnecessary RfC. These are factual statements made by a notable journalist at a notable news organization. There is no evidence that the journalist in question, David Lazarus, is on some kind of crusade against Yelp, or that the Los Angeles Times is for some reason not to be trusted and is simply mouthing off on Yelp. It is not a user-generated blog by any stretch of the imagination, and it is not an editorial or an opinion piece. It is the Los Angeles Times's business columnist reporting facts. Yelp, whose spokesman was quoted in this piece, doesn't like what the LA Times printed. Tough. There is absolutely zero reason to remove or change this text, but we keep on getting the insistence of a Yelp representative, CorporateM, that it has to go.


 * Up with this I am fed. Enough already. Put down the WP:STICK, already. If you don't like what the LA Times business columnist reports about Yelp, take it up with the LA Times or its business columnist. Coretheapple (talk) 15:21, 11 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment There was a prior discussion at RSN and The Four Deuces raised the valid point that WP:NEWSORG discourages the use of editorials, even if they are written by professional journalists. This article explains the difference between editorials and columns. Columns are the reporter's "personal opinion about issues" and editorials are "presenting the opinion of the publisher, editor or editors." If the source is kept, It should be attributed to the author, not the publication, since this is a column, not an editorial.


 * I wish we could have a thoughtful discussion. RSN doesn't have any recent thoughtful discussions about columns to establish precedence. Many editors like myself use RSN archives constantly to evaluate sources. The reliable sources guideline doesn't address columns specifically and seems to have contradicting advice. Unfortunately, once an editor de-rails the discussion to focus on COI, editors will respond based on their opinions about COI and COI conduct, rather than policies and sources. Therefore, Core is right that this RFC will not be useful, since it is tainted by the cloud of COI. I will try to raise the issue again on an article where I have no COI. This one sentence on this one article is not that important. CorporateM (Talk) 18:46, 11 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment: As a neutral editor, maybe my two cents might be helpful. My thoughts are these: 1) The facts should be kept. 2) The current wording should be revised (maybe as CorporateM suggested above).


 * To elaborate: I do think that a column by Mr. Lazarus fits the requirements of reliable sources as described in WP:UGC because his columns can safely be assumed to be "subject to the news outlet's full editorial control", so when he uses the column to report things that happened, it's a reliable source for those things. In this specific instance though, all that he reports as fact is that sponsored ads were placed above one guy's entry (which any Yelp user can confirm is their standard policy, just check this random search I just did (disable your adblocker first)) and that he was offered to buy the same ad space to have his entry shown instead. As such, I think CorporateM's suggested wording above is actually harsher (but better) than the current wording because it removes the unnecessary "alleged" (they did admit to it after all, they just objected to the word "extortion"). I would suggest to rephrase it a bit and to use this wording:


 * Journalist David Lazarus of the Los Angeles Times also criticized Yelp in 2014 for the practice of selling competitors' ads to run on top of business listings and then offering to have the ads removed as part of a paid feature.


 * Regards  So Why  20:48, 11 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I sincerely appreciate your keeping the discussion on-topic. I would suggest "columnist" rather than "journalist", as this is what the LA Times and our own Wikipedia page on David Lazarus both call him. Also, rather than the vague "criticized" I think we could work something more specific in - he says "unfair business practice". But this is all just nit-picking. As you point out, the facts that Yelp does offer this service is not contested, only whether a journalist's opinion is undue when it's in an article that is actually identified as opinion, rather than news. CorporateM (Talk) 21:28, 11 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I think for some people the word "columnist" carries the connotation of someone just writing their own opinion down without any journalistic training or experience. The wording I suggested is factually correct because Lazarus is a journalist and he works for the LA Times. As for the last part of your comment, I think it reflects what Coretheapple commented above, i. e. that just because Lazarus used his column to report it, doesn't mean it's not real journalistic reporting. Regards  So Why  19:13, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Regarding "carries the connotation of someone just writing their own opinion down without any journalistic training or experience" I think it's important to distinguish between editorials, columns and op-eds. What you're describing is an op-ed, whereas columnists are typically written by journalists, so using the word columnist doesn't imply that it's an op-ed. The Wikipedia page on Opinion pieces offers a good summary of how each one differs. Anyways, your suggested copy is also good/better for various reasons. CorporateM (Talk) 19:29, 12 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Unaccept the phrasing is a minor distortion of the cite, did not convey due weight on other views, and may be insignificant. Saying LA times is unusual and not about the complaint so it seems just there to push authority of what is basically the one businessmans view.   The line did not include the larger view of article lead 'that the merchant could buy out the ad space on your own page' and it all could be conveyed equally well in more neutral phrasing that all might agree is the situation e.g. 'competitors ability to buy ads over a review unless the business pays to get the space has felt coercive'.  But the larger picture seems like this is really hunting down to nit stories to get negatives in this Relationship section and only negatives.  Where is the context of overall picture academic survey or maybe a subsection of something positive or in this subsection about coercive effect if something exists about what percent businesses feel driven.  The closest this seems to come to an independent overview or alternate view seems to be where is says all such negative claims have failed in court. Markbassett (talk) 12:53, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Unacceptable: The extortion twist should be removed from the explanation of Yelp's service that allows a business to "buy out the ad space on [its] own page." The business practice ("selling ads that accompany related business listings," but also allowing businesses to buyout the ad space on their page) should be explained with neutrality, then it should be mentioned that columnist David Lazarus of the Los Angeles Times has criticized this business practice by likening it to extortion. Abierma3 (talk) 11:34, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

"Journalist David Lazarus of the Los Angeles Times also criticized Yelp in 2014 for the practice of selling competitor's ads to run on top of business listings, and allegedly offering to have the ads removed for a $75 monthly fee."
 * The facts should be kept. The framing suggested by User:SoWhy is more accurate and should be used. Darx9url (talk)


 * SoWhy's version looks fine to me. The LA Times column calls it an "unfair business practice", and it seems fair to list this criticism on the page.  I don't see issues with undue emphasis.  The content is reliably published and from a mainstream source.  To censor this criticism would be a bad idea and seems like whitewashing. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:26, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Primary sources are acceptable if attributed. Something being a primary source does not automagically make it WP:UNDUE. It would be if he were some random dude who'd figured out how to post a webpage, but that's not the case here. It  be undue weight, no matter who wrote it, if it were a lone report, and the claim was extraordinary. But it's not, and it's been well-reported in a lot of other sources. Add another citation and this entire question is just made moot.  Here's a head start for ya..   — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  07:47, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * That's a very good point, and editors (myself included) have been treating this as an isolated comment, whereas the general issue has received so much attention that it may be worthy of a separate subsection. I might add that my input into this article was specifically requested by CorporateM. Coretheapple (talk) 13:17, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Those sources are on a similar subject in a very general way (Yelp's relationship with business owners), but I have not seen any secondary sources criticize the practice of selling advertising space on a listing to competitors, etc. If there are some available, they would be a worthwhile replacement for the column. Despite the poor reporting (the columnist apparently didn't bother to verify that this was in fact an advertised service), it's actually a much more reasonable criticism. The accusations of nefarious review manipulation are primarily from businesses unhappy with their ratings, whereas Yelp does in fact sell ads to competitors of the listed business and it is a pretty aggressive tactic. Well, now I'm just ranting my own personal POV though. CorporateM (Talk) 19:37, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * A more general approach to WP "coverage" of what RS say about this stuff might be in order, instead of focusing on that one allegation. Also, if the journalist actually did make at least one known factual error (including a major one of omission) that would seem to call into question the source's reliability in a much more direct way.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  20:27, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I actually have to recant my comment there. Previously there was a discussion about "allegedly" being a poor use of language, since the fact that Yelp does this is easily verified, but they were talking about the the article-text on Wikipedia and not the source. My mistake! We're the ones that got it wrong, not the columnist, and it's a minor mistake anyway. The $75 price-tag mentioned in the source is probably incorrect, as I believe Enhanced Profiles start at around $300, but this is properly attributed to the claims of an individual business owner anyway and not included in the proposed text above. I think the current article-text does a good job of summarizing the issues without getting into the nitty gritty of every single small business and their individual allegations. It did get a good going over in the GA review process. Every publication that covers this usually finds their own anecdotes from small business owners and the accusations run a wide spectrum. CorporateM (Talk) 22:57, 22 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Accept The quote is fully sourced to a suitable reference and, aside from that, the text is accurate. People researching Yelp will want to see commentary about Yelp's business practices albeit one that Yelp itself continues to deny. More information is better than less provided said information is encyclopedic and well-sourced. Damotclese (talk) 16:23, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Request edit
Requesting someone implement what has been established as consensus in the RFC above. had proposed some specific text "Journalist David Lazarus of the Los Angeles Times also criticized Yelp in 2014 for the practice of selling competitors' ads to run on top of business listings and then offering to have the ads removed as part of a paid feature." Certainly editors also have the option of wording it some other sensible way. CorporateM (Talk) 20:21, 20 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Article is now updated with the suggested wording by User:SoWhy. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 18:00, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Updates
It's been about six months since I last participated here and since then many new sources have been published. As per usual, many are about individual reviews or other trivial manners, but two things that appeared to get widespread press attention was new Yelp pages for US government agencies and some material about health inspection scores. I have put some draft content below I'd like to suggest be added to the page, probably under Features, though it could also go under History. David King, Ethical Wiki (CorporateM) (Talk) 19:41, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

In late 2015, a "Public Services & Government" section was introduced to Yelp and the General Services Administration began encouraging government agencies to create and monitor official government pages. For example, the Transportation Security Administration created official TSA Yelp pages. Later that year Yelp began experimenting in San Francisco with consumer alerts that were added to pages about restaurants with poor hygiene scores in government inspections. Research conducted by the Boston Children's Hospital found that Yelp reviews with keywords associated with food poisoning correlates strongly with poor hygiene at the restaurant. Researchers at Columbia University used data from Yelp to identify three previously unreported restaurant-related food poisoning outbreaks.

I would also suggest trimming "based on a shortened version of "yellow pages"" from the early history section as unsourced; I was unable to find any sources to support this statement regarding Yelp's name. And finding a more neutral last sentence in the Lead that shows a debate with multiple viewpoints and accusations on both sides, as oppose to its overtly one-sided description currently. CorporateM (Talk) 20:53, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

✅. Informational value overcomes promotional value. Timothy Joseph Wood 15:19, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Recent edit
These edits by removed a couple sentences of well-sourced criticisms without explanation. The following was removed:
 * "but some negative reviews are very personal or extreme. Many reviews are written in an entertaining or creative manner. "
 * "The system has led to criticisms that business owners can bribe reviewers with free food or discounts to increase their rating, though Yelp users say this rarely occurs. "

Not sure why these would be trimmed, as they are cited to reliable sources like The New York Times. CorporateM (Talk) 18:29, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅, thank you for your forthright alert. I too see no reason for removing these criticisms. Altamel (talk) 21:51, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
 * @User:CorporateM Could you take a look at something else? The article used to say Yelp makes restaurant reservations through OpenTable, which Schlafwurst changed to SeatMe. The sentence as it stands is probably incorrect, since Schlafwurst did not provide a new source for this change. Thanks, Altamel (talk) 22:00, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for bringing this to my attention. In my ignorance, I presumed the company was renamed when I saw that change. I'm in class right now, but I will look into this over the weekend. CorporateM (Talk) 14:12, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

There's actually quite a bit of press coverage/content regarding restaurant reservations features that I didn't notice at first blush in bringing the page up to GA.

A few key highlights include:
 * Yelp partnered with OpenTable in 2010. The integration with OpenTable allowed users to make reservations in the Yelp website even if they didn't have an OpenTable account and was largely a move to push competitor UrbanSpoon out of the market.
 * Yelp acquired OpenTable competitor SeatMe in 2013, which prompted "speculation that the deal with OpenTable was in jeopardy. SeatMe was transformed into "Yelp Reservations"
 * Yelp and OpenTable "gradually encroached on each other's territory," becoming increasingly competitive and ending the relationship in April 2015.

Of course the historical stuff should be reserved, but anything referring to current features, should actually call it "Yelp Reservations" (the current name for SeatMe) Let me know if there's anything else I can do to help. CorporateM (Talk) 14:50, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Per the discussion above, requesting the following changes:
 * In the Lead: "as well as the online reservation service SeatMe Yelp Reservations"
 * Features section, two paragraphs up from the Features for business sub-section: "Yelp users can make restaurant reservations in Yelp through SeatMe Yelp Reservations, a feature originally added in June 2010.[70][71] Yelp's reservation features were initially done through a 2010 partnership with OpenTable, but Yelp became increasingly competitive with OpenTable after its 2013 acquisition of SeatMe, resulting in the end of the partnership in April 2015. SeatMe was reworked into the current "Yelp Reservations" feature. "

CorporateM (Talk) 18:38, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ Altamel (talk) 21:47, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Yelp Reservations page
Hi everyone, I really don't see a purpose in having Yelp Reservations as a separate article. The article is only a few sentences, so it could easily be a section on the Yelp page. Thoughts?

Daylen (talk) 04:02, 9 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Agree. Should definitely be merged. Didn't know this article existed. Coretheapple (talk) 15:30, 9 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Ditto. It could probably be PROD'd or deleted non-controversially. CorporateM (Talk)


 * , the page was under the name Yelp SeatMe; however, I renamed it to reflect current branding. When an editor updated the Yelp article from when the service was called SeatMe, they removed the link, causing the article to be an orphan. Daylen (talk) 03:13, 11 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Well it doesn't seem very controversial to merge. I think you can safely proceed, though I guess there's no harm to wait another day or so to see if there are any objections. Coretheapple (talk) 15:49, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Yelp Reservations
Currently there is a section called "Yelp Reservations" with a cleanup tag on it. It looks like the content was added here by as a result of a merge from what use to be a separate article Yelp Reservations. Since Yelp Reservations is already covered in the fourth paragraph of the Features section, I'm not sure this redundant section is needed? Giving an individual feature its own section and infobox also seems like a bit of overkill. CorporateM (Talk) 23:41, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi I agree that the sections should be merged, I have been quite busy lately so I will merge them when I get a chance (if someone else wants to merge them now, go ahead). Update: I just realized someone has already removed the section, I might go back and merge a couple of parts of it back into the article. Daylen (talk) 05:33, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Yelp
Hello *Unknown*

I have been using the app Yelp lately and I have not really liked it (so far). What do you guys think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hustemma101 (talk • contribs) 22:02, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi there . This talk page is for discussing improvements to the Yelp article. For general discussion about Yelp, I would recommend an online form. Have a great day! Daylen (talk) 23:01, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Screenshot requested
It would be great if someone could add a screenshot of the Yelp homepage to the article's infobox. Thanks! Daylen (talk) 05:39, 14 January 2017 (UTC)


 * What do you think about a screenshot from the mobile app? The app is probably more significant than the website, since 72% of Yelp searches are done through the app. (It's also more photogenic for a small image space). Either way I can set that up later this weekend. CorporateM (Talk) 15:12, 14 January 2017 (UTC)


 * That would be great! Daylen (talk) 02:49, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
 * . I have uploaded a mobile app screenshot here. CorporateM (Talk) 21:23, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Missing information: Yelp Cash Back
This article is missing information regarding Yelp cash back (https://yelp.com/rewards).

Sources:
 * http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/talkingtech/2016/12/22/yelp-introduces-cash-back-program-consumers/95768842/
 * http://www.digitaltrends.com/web/yelp-cash-back/

Daylen (talk) 22:57, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

I propose the following text: "Yelp started a 7-10% cash back program at some US restaurants in 2016 through partnership with Empyr.

I'm not sure it's really needed (we don't need to list every feature and offer here), but I don't have a strong opinion. Just figured I'd help resolve the tag. Disclosure: I have a COI/financial connection with Yelp. CorporateM (Talk) 18:47, 30 December 2017 (UTC)


 * ✅ Daylen (talk) 21:43, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Insufficiently paraphrased text removed 07-JUL-2018
The following text was found to be insufficiently paraphrased from the source material and was removed. An additional sentence was also removed, as it did not make grammatical sense without the insufficiently paraphrased text beside it. (See WP:CLOSEPARAPHRASE.)

 spintendo   00:16, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Recent edits
Recently, someone added a section called "Hassell v. Bird." The section says that "Yelp also censors reviews" and that Yelp is "misleading site visitors." It discusses what I presume is the editor's own personal experiences about trying to post negative reviews about Yelp itself on Yelp. Ironically, the section says that Yelp has been "widely criticized for censorship of consumer reviews" but the whole point of Hassell v. Bird was that Yelp is not required to censor reviews when threatened with defamation suits. The section contains no secondary sources and only one primary source that does not support any of the content. I request removing the section and/or replacing it with 1-2 sentences of neutral content from proper secondary sources (I can write if requested).

Additionally, I presume the same editor added a "Controversy" section, which is disfavored by WP:CRITS. In the process, they created a stub section for "Relationship with businesses." I request deleting the "==Controversy==" so the content will be under the more descriptive title again per Wikipedia's norms. CorporateM (Talk) 22:09, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Reply 06-JUL-2018
The COI editor has suggested two options: deletion or substitution with some, as of yet, unspecified replacement text. Looking at the SUNS suggestions, this doesn't appear to be a question of a COI editor needing an impartial reviewer to implement an uncomplicated edit request to remove or replace information. The request here concerns removing controversial information that another experienced editor added. Thus, the COI editor would do best to start a discussion which involves the editor who added that information, in this case,. Regards,  spintendo   23:18, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
 * The extent of my editing was to move the Hassell v. Bird information from the lead, where it clearly did not belong, to a section in the body. Since there were already several sections, with headings, describing specific controversies involving Yelp, I created a new section to contain them and demoted all under that heading. As to the content itself, anything that is not properly cited should be flagged with citation needed, sources found and cited, or removed if no reliable sources can be found (not because the OP doesn't like sections devoted to criticism).  WP:CRITS, cited by, is quite clear: "Many organizations and corporations are involved in well-documented controversies, or may be subject to significant criticism. If reliable sources – other than the critics themselves – provide substantial coverage devoted to the controversies or criticisms, then that may justify sections and sub-articles devoted to the controversies or criticism."  General Ization  Talk  00:30, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
 * If the OP would like to discuss the merits, or lack of same, with the contributor of the content itself, that would be .  General Ization Talk  00:33, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
 * The "Relationship with businesses" section has not changed its position within the article. Clearly the Hassell v. Bird information does not pertain to relationships with businesses (rather with consumers who post reviews), and the other two sections that are now in proximity to it are clearly controversies; it makes more sense that the three be grouped than that they all fall under the former heading. Note also, please, that I am the editor who added the refimprove section and primary templates to the Hassell v. Bird section when I moved the content.  General Ization Talk  00:48, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Based on feedback from / above I would like to modify my request to the following:
 * Remove the Hassel V. Bird section
 * Replace it with: "In 2018, in the case of Hassel v. Bird, a California court held that businesses cannot force Yelp to remove a review, even if the review is defamatory. " This phrase very closely follows the first sentence of the Associated Press article cited summarizing the outcome. I think this fits perfectly in the Relationship with Businesses section, but suggest putting it under Controversies per Ization's comments.

If anyone feels some modifications from this request are in order, I encourage them to do so boldly without my input. I am looking for a quick correction of overt original research and attack content. I do not wish to debate exact verbiage, etc.. CorporateM (Talk) 11:56, 7 July 2018 (UTC)


 * 1) ✅ The Hassel v. Bird section, largely unreferenced, was removed.
 * 2) ✅ The compromise sentence was put in its place.
 * 3) ✅ The refimprove template was removed. Since the proposed compromise sentence that I implemented carries a primary source, I'll leave that template for the editor who placed it to remove.
 * Regards,  spintendo   13:20, 7 July 2018 (UTC)


 * I have edited further: "In 2018, in the case Hassell v. Bird, the California Supreme Court held by a narrow 4-3 margin that a business cannot force Yelp to remove a review, even if the review is defamatory of the business." This a) spells Hassell's name, thus the style of the case, correctly; b) correctly identifies the court as the state's Supreme Court and the fact that it was divided in its decision; and c) correctly summarizes the decision, which held that a specific business could not obtain an order. The court did not rule directly on the ability of businesses generally to do so; if the court's ruling has that effect, it will be through precedent.  General Ization  Talk  13:41, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I also restored the link to the PDF of the court's decision. Though a primary source, the sentence is not reliant upon it since a secondary source (the AP article) is also cited. If we are going to boil an entire 102-page 33-page decision (plus another 60-odd pages of concurring and dissenting opinions) down to one sentence, we should maintain the link so that readers can easily see the court's full decision and the case background.  General Ization Talk  13:54, 7 July 2018 (UTC)


 * for these modifications.  spintendo   13:51, 7 July 2018 (UTC)


 * I suggest adding more text to the material on the Supreme Court case. It seems skimpy. Also it should probably be a subsection and called "Supreme Court decision" or something like that rather than the caption of the case. Not a lot, but maybe a sentence or two . Coretheapple (talk) 12:48, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Competitors
Currently, the page has a list of competitors at the end of the Lead as follows: "Major competitors include TripAdvisor, Google review, and dianping.com (though Yelp does not operate in China)." I ask that this be removed, as most editors see these kinds of ever-expanding competitor lists as plugs and linkbait. CorporateM (Talk) 19:29, 14 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Since the editor who added this claim is an administrator it might be a good idea to go ahead and check with them first as a courtesy to see if the list of competitors can be reconsidered. Regards Spintendo  23:10, 14 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Pinging who started the competitor list.  might be able to verify (or oppose) my depiction of competitor lists on company pages. CorporateM (Talk) 19:09, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, I don't have any personal business interest in adding these competitors, and they don't seem to have attracted a lot of inappropriate expansion. I added the list while pondering travel in China, both from a consumer and public policy perspective. The PRC government has a policy of excluding foreign competition in a lot of areas, so I was looking around to see if Wikipedia listed Chinese equivalents to travel-related American web sites. It didn't, so I added some, along with other major competitors. Though Wikipedia is not a shopping guide, I find these mentions informative as a consumer, if I am having a bad experience with one business and want to know who else is available. Getting the context of the major market players is also important for readers concerned about economic issues, whether they are examining the company for suitability for investment, or just figuring out if this particular corner of the market is a monopoly or duopoly or if there's lots of competition or what. Yelp has a strong commercial interest in excluding any mention of competitors from its article and pretending it's the only such web site in the world, even if that doesn't benefit readers. These lists don't have to be on the article; we have many lists (and categories and nav templates) that compare market offerings or list the major businesses in a specific market (e.g. those that have articles). That way of doing this does reduce redundancy and having a single list with clear criteria can cut down on inappropriate conclusions. But I couldn't find any such list for Yelp-like sites, so adding a very short list directly to the article seemed like the best solution for now. I have no objection if someone wants to start such a list and move content there, as long as it's linked from the individual articles. -- Beland (talk) 19:40, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for responding. You mentioned adding a competitor list here because there were no categories or "list of" pages with the same information. Would Category: Review websites or Category: Travel_websites do the trick? It was actually this edit that brought the competitor list to my attention. These lists tend to grow over time and become a duplicate of the categories. CorporateM (Talk) 00:07, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Both of those categories seem incredibly broad compared to the relatively small universe of crowdsourced review sites that cover retail businesses. Categories and list articles that cover the same topic are generally not considered redundant, but complementary. -- Beland (talk) 01:50, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I usually remove lists of competitors. Most such existing lists are hold-overs from the early days of WP. But if there are only a few, there is usually a way to mention them more informatively in the article. The best place is often a paragraph on market share.  DGG ( talk ) 18:03, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
 * thoughts on 's comments above? I agree that cited information on market-share in the body of the article is appropriate. In fact, any citation at all would be better. CorporateM (Talk) 00:02, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Sure, sounds like we'd basically be adding market share data to the existing list, which would be quite informative and also help determine which competitors are worth mentioning. There are several metrics by which to measure market share (or at least absolute activity, if no one knows how big the overall market is) including number of active users, number of reviews (per month or something), and web page views. -- Beland (talk) 02:39, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I think that a list of a company's major competitors is helpful to educate readers about a topic. I don't understand why we would want to remove that information. To me, it is the sort of thing Wikipedia is here for – to be the source of the kind of information you wouldn't get just from reading a company's website. A list of three prominent competitors is not "ever-expanding ... plugs and linkbait". It is valuable information for anyone who wants to study a company or product offering. —BarrelProof (talk) 21:15, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Recent lede edit
The Lead currently states: "The Yelp.com automated filter algorithm removes many positive reviews from companies, when they refuse to buy advertising, which has caused controversy."

It originally said: "The Yelp.com automated filter algorithm removes many positive reviews from companies, in order to avoid fake reviews, which has caused controversy"

The original version is a proven fact. Yelp's algorithm does attempt to remove fake reviews. In the process, many authentic ones are filtered.

The current version is a speculative accusation that has never been proven. There have been multiple government investigations, lawsuits, and studies to find out whether Yelp alters its filters against those that do not buy advertising, but they have all come up empty-handed.

I request that either the original factual version be restored, or that the current version be re-stated to summarize the controversy, rather than state Yelp is guilty as a matter of fact.

Pinging the GA reviewer who may have some memory of these topics. As stated previously, I have a COI (see my user page) CorporateM (Talk) 15:23, 11 April 2019 (UTC)


 * I don’t have an objection to restoring the original. If you can craft a pithy lede sentence or clause to sum up the accusations (which are admittedly numerous enough to consider summary in the lede) then I’ll review that. Just ping me here and allow for a few days. Protonk (talk) 18:17, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
 * How about something like: "Yelp has a filter that attempts to remove fake reviews orchestrated by the business themselves. Yelp has been accused of manipulating the filter to work against small businesses that do not purchase advertising, but so far lawsuits, government investigations, and academic studies have not vindicated the accusation." Just my off-the-cuff write-up. Please edit at will. CorporateM (Talk) 01:56, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I think I prefer the original text. I'll ping back or update the page myself if I think of a better way to phrase this but I don't want to post what feels like an exoneration in the lede (tho I understand it's just summarizing the article) which I think might be likely to be reverted or modified and then we're back here again. I'll do some reading and hopefully post back here. Protonk (talk) 20:07, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Recent Lead Changes
I wanted to re-spark this discussion about the Lead. previously mentioned the Lead should cover the controversy around allegations that Yelp manipulates reviews based on advertising spend. However, I believe the current Lead:
 * Is undue because it has too much emphasis on controversy (1/3rd of the Lead)
 * Is not NPOV, because it focuses on mere accusations without including compelling evidence to the contrary.
 * Seems to imply Yelp acknowledged it manipulates reviews "to some degree" which is not true. I believe this comment was intended to refer to allowing companies to advertise on their competitors' page, which is true.

As previously disclosed, I have a COI in that I work with Yelp to help them make requests like these. Sincerely. CorporateM (Talk) 01:40, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Request edit
The Lead states: "'The company has been accused of using unfair practices to raise revenue from the businesses that are reviewed on its site – e.g., by presenting more negative review information for companies that do not purchase its advertising services or by prominently featuring advertisements of the competitors of such non-paying companies. The company has acknowledged these practices to some degree, while denying certain behavior.'"

Presumably, the intent was to mean that Yelp "acknowledges" allowing businesses to advertise on pages about competitors, but is "denying" any manipulation of user reviews based on advertising purchases. However, since these two practices are lumped together into "these practices" it makes it sound like Yelp "acknowledged ... to some degree" the practice of manipulating reviews. They have not.

I would like to request the following change to make the sentence more specific and clear: "'The company has acknowledged these practices to some degree, while denying certain behavior <B> does allow businesses to advertise on pages about competitors but denies manipulating user reviews to criticize businesses that do not advertise</b>.'" CorporateM (Talk) 15:26, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Reply 20-NOV-2019
Regards, Spintendo  03:12, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
 * The reference used in the article for the passage in question (which, presumably, is to be used with the proposed altered text shown above) has not been included here on the talk page. Please indicate which reference shall be used with the proposed text.

I also took a look. I agree that the sentence was vague. I think it also didn't really add anything of value to the summary, so I simply removed it. The rewording proposed above would have been somewhat redundant and possibly not entirely accurate (e.g., exactly what "manipulating" means). —BarrelProof (talk) 20:16, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

No entries for Greece
Does anybody know why Yelp has no entries whatsoever for Greece? ICE77 (talk) 08:18, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Yelp to stop auto-creating fundraisers after outrage from business owners
This recent news story might be helpful to include somewhere

https://www.theverge.com/2020/3/26/21196446/yelp-gofundme-coronavirus-automatic-opt-in-fundraiser-pause

John Cummings (talk) 17:04, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

opening line
The opening of this article doesn't actually state what Yelp Inc. is. (A business.) So should the article start with something like, "Yelp is an American multinational e-commerce corporation based in _______." Consistent with how the opening wording of other Wikipedia articles about businesses begin? --MaxineJP (talk) 19:32, 14 February 2022 (UTC)