Talk:TigerDirect

Founding date discrepancy

There appears to be a discrepancy in the date this company was founded. I'm leaving it as 1987 for now, but please be aware that some sources are reporting a date of 1988. If someone can come up with a definitive source, such as an interview with Gilbert Fiorentino or public record, please let me know and make any corrections if necessary. —RaD Man (talk) 08:45, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

TigerDirect is the end result in a series of companies and products - all coming from a direct marketing background. Immediately prior to TigerDirect was TigerSoftware, the true start of "Tiger" in 1987.

TigerSoftware, Inc.: 10/20/1987 Tiger Direct, Inc.: 10/20/1990 [1]

TigerDirect, Inc.: 5/26/2005 [2]

1987 is the correct year —Preceding unsigned comment added by LUVLEE17 (talk • contribs) 17:38, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Ties to OnRebate

• I'm not sure how to do it properly but it probably should be mentioned that they own/operate onrebate.com and globalcomputer.com

The previous unsigned comment was added by 68.226.2.177 (contribs/talk), at 11:36 UTC on 12 January 2006.

• They should rot in techie hell for perpetrating such a vile fraud. Someone write it up with the right level of anger but not as many curse words as I would use. GRR!!!

The previous unsigned comment was added by 72.17.207.50 (contribs/talk), at 17:36 UTC on 11 April 2006.

• For the record, here are two sites that have frontpaged on Digg in the past, regarding TigerDirect and its ties to OnRebate: [3] and [4].

--Bp28 06:12, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

InfoWorld

• I remember recently skimming a copy of InfoWorld and finding an article mentioning TigerDirect and problems relating to OnRebate. Unfortunately, I don't own a subscription to that magazine, but think it probably would be a decent source for issues relating to OnRebate and TigerDirect. Smeggysmeg 05:45, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, gol durn it . . . how shall I best put it in the most objective and genteel terms? The pattern of Tiger Direct's behavior relating to refunds and defective merchandise rings so very, very resonantly with this writer. Luckily in the end, after an approximate three-month sojourn of waiting, emails, unconsummated phone holds, and non-factually oriented promises by TD customer service representatives, American Express was finally able to wrest back a refund plus a little something extra for my return shipping. --PLK

Ratings section

• It looks to me like the ratings section was put together by TigerDirect's PR department. It's a laundry list of how popular and great TigerDirect is, and any website, opinion, or otherwise is refuted right after it is mentioned. A lot of what's presented is statistics, which is a good hard fact and hard to refute, but all more opinion-oriented statements are shot down right away. I'll obviously need to find sources to back this up, but I've encountered huge bulks of negative opinion regarding TigerDirect, especially with the rebate site they own, OnRebate.com, which I thought was mentioned in this article but it seems is there no longer. A common perception is that they use OnRebate to make their prices look lower and then never follow through with reimbursing the customer for the rebates. Smeggysmeg 15:45, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
• Rating sites are compilations of opinions of those that have transacted with TigerDirect. While there may be some customers with negative experiences, it seems and the ratings indicate that the overwhelming majority have had good experiences. As with all companies, it is important to take into account the volume of business when looking at negative comments. This ratings section is referenced, impartial and uses the main rating sites as a source.
• ISSUE CORRECTED Countchoc 09:35, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Reverts by TigerDirect employees consistently remove complaint sites and negative reviews from the article. Bias does not necessarily mean it does not belong in the article, as the reviews of this retailer are relevant and important. There are many well respected review sites that conclude TigerDirect is a terrible company, yet these references are continually removed and reverted with no explanation. Trigger hurt 01:16, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
• Re. BBB "pattern" is 2+ complaints: the company has THOUSANDS of complaints! Irrelevant data snipped. -Anon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.169.60.252 (talk) 09:00, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

What's with the "Late 1990's launch of an NEC CD player for $1000". What is that? A music CD player? An external USB CD-ROM drive, in the late 1990s, for $1000? Even in 1999, a CD-ROM drive cost $100-$200, tops, not $1000.-User:wpostma —The preceding signed but undated comment was added at 03:23, August 26, 2007 (UTC).

Look for current updates of ratings from BBB, BizRate, reseller ratings on the web.

Yes, but WP:RS trumps obscure words every time

Per edit summary: "I'm sorry, but pure obduracy does not entitle you to unilaterally remove content. Please DISCUSS issues you wish to address as you have been invited to".

It's generally the burden of the editor adding content to show notability and verifiability, but in the spirit of ycarudbo and in response to your request (plus making me go look up "obduracy"), I've started this discussion instead. :)

Seriously, the section and sources I removed have no place on Wikipedia--info sourced to epinions, shopzilla, pricegrabber and other anonymous- and user-contributed reviews and ratings are not accepted as reliable sources. Are there articles and sources that meet WP:RS that we can draw from to work on creating a better article? Otherwise, the edits need to be removed. Flowanda | Talk 06:03, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I wasn't addressing you, but the several anonymous users who persistently removed the ratings section. No, user reviews may not strictly be a reliable source, but tens of thousands of customer reviews, taken in aggregate, and described as what they are (non-authoritative) seems to me to be a useful contribution. I've removed the two most non-neutral links. Feezo (Talk) 10:22, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

removal of single-entry blog and user-generated ratings

I have removed tigerdirectsucks.org for obvious reasons -- it is a single-entry blog by an anonymous user about a single incident. No authority, no mentions anywhere else other than similar sites, no sources, nothing other than a single personal experience. I also removed ratings attributed to Amazon, epinions, cnet, shopzilla user reviews because they do not meet the criteria for reliable sources. Please discuss here before adding such content; the burden to show relevance and notability is on editors adding content, not removing it. Flowanda | Talk 10:24, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Ratings sites inclusion

An ongoing source of unproductive editing seems to revolve around edits sourced to various review sites. Please, let's discuss them here first as a way to achieve consensus as to what should and should not be included. Until then, they should not be included in the main article. I've voiced my opinions in above discussions, but that's just a starting point. Flowanda | Talk 02:35, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

The purpose of this article is to provide information about the topic. Consumer review sites are extremely relevant when the topic is a retailer. The review sites left in are the most reputable ones, and are linked to the correct pages. This is extremely helpful for readers that come here before making a decision on whether to shop with this particual retailer or not. The amount of editing involved in maintaining the information should not be a factor in keeping it. I have left in all other edits. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.8.148.21 (talk) 16:10, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

computer.com - why does it redirect here?

Why does computer.com redirect here? The page says nothing about a link between them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.183.185.116 (talk) 02:10, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I second this question. If no explanation can be provided, the computer.com redirect should be deleted. CraigWyllie (talk) 02:46, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Computer.com was owned by TigerDirect for a period of time [5] during which it redirected to TigerDirect.com. It was sold and is no longer TigerDirect. [6] and [7]

Any redirect (and this section) should be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.166.181.136 (talk) 04:31, 19 March 2008 (UTC)