Talk:Bed Bath & Beyond (online retailer)

Archives: Talk:Overstock.com/Archive 1

Article probation

Restrictions...Editors are directed:

(A) To edit on these from only a single user account, which shall be the user's sole or main account;

(B) To edit only through a conventional ISP and not through any form of proxy configuration;

(C) To edit in accordance with all Wikipedia policies and to refrain from any form of advocacy concerning any external controversy, dispute, allegation, or proceeding; and

(D) To disclose on the relevant talk pages any circumstances (but not including personal identifying information) that constitute or may reasonably be perceived as constituting a conflict of interest with respect to that page.

Do not remove this notice — Rlevse • Talk • 22:09, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

O.co

Why does this redirect here from Overstock.com? The company is STILL Overstock.com. Their URL is both O.CO and Overstock.com. Doesn't matter how much they rebrand.. until their company files paperwork as O.CO you can't list them as O.CO. This is asinine Wikinista (talk) 17:49, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

DOES NO ONE CARE? THE COMPANY IS OVERSTOCK.COM PEOPLE!!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.203.33.64 (talk) 03:32, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Gradient lawsuit

In reporting the outcome of a lawsuit, fairness dictates that you be as even handed as possible. Reporting the home town paper's version of it's CEO's lawsuit needs to be balanced by the more skeptical reaction of a New York Times columnist of outstanding reputation.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 00:42, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

The information is sourced to Reuters. That it happens to be also sourced to the SLT is just to establish that it's widely reported. I think your quote introduced undue weight, what I added was factual, without commentary (which was quoted and which I could have included...) I'll be reverting it on that basis but feel free to add something back which is a balanced set of quotes, not just one negative. ++Lar: t/c 17:22, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

The Salt Lake Tribune and Deseret News have probably published more words about the "Sith Lord" than any two papers in the world. I think it's insulting to call them a biased source; I did a quick search to be sure, and found an appropriately skeptical 2100 word article by Bob Mims May 6, 2006 that concludes with this line: "Adds [Gary] Weiss: 'It is a disgrace that regulators take these people seriously, and I believe that [it is] the funding and tactics of these people [that] should be investigated.'"

Most sources seem to think this was some kind of win for Overstock.com, even though the settlement is totally opaque. Here, for example, is the the well-respected WSJ law blog. They conclude that Gradient didn't want to face a jury. That could be, or it could have been settled for mere nuisance value (maybe $0). I say we just stick to the facts. Cool Hand Luke 19:55, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Which sources feel it is a win for Overstock? The only analysis I see is from a distinguished columnist for the New York Times Nocera, whose deft analysis of the lawsuit has been removed from this article on a shoddy pretext. I have no idea what the "Sith Lord" has to do with any of this, or whether the Salt Lake Tribune is a good or bad publication. What matters is that the New York Times analysed this lawsuit settlement and found it to be a big nothing. Removing it skews the article and does a disservice to your readers. Nocera was executive editor of Fortune and was a Pulitzer finalist. If he doesn't meet your criteria for inclusion then there is something wrong with your criteria. I personally doubt that it doesn't meet your criteria.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 14:44, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I added a Fortune article. I think it is essential to have both sides of the story in reporting litigation.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 15:22, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

If you'd like to include the article, you would have to paraphrase what it says. Looking through, I see this article stated:

Gradient also said it regrets describing Overstock's accounting policies as being outside of generally accepted accounting procedures, or GAAP, which is traditionally a red flag for securities analysts. ... In turn, Overstock said it will now press ahead on its case against Copper River.

I have no problem noting if Overstock conceded something or Gradient held on to something, but this should presumably be something that has been noted prominently, that we can then add and source. If Nocera said that they did not admit to the underlying claims, I would think that could be added. Mackan79 (talk) 20:07, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I have reverted User:John Nevard's addition of an analysis quote by lawyers. What I added was a factual reporting of settlement, and of what Gradient admitted, as released in Reuters. People keep trying to add things that put this partial settlement in a negative light. That suffers from an undue weight problem. If you wish to have the article say more about this topic, you'll have to find quotes that present all sides. For example, if you include statements from Gradient, or from Copper River you'll need to also include statements from Overstock rebutting them. Best to just leave it all out, go with a purely factual presentation in this area and let the reader draw their own conclusions. I strongly suggest against a repeat insertion of such material without gaining consensus here on the the talk page first. Which does not at this time exist. I further note that this article is on probation so fiddling about will not be looked at kindly. ++Lar: t/c 00:09, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

John Nevard undid my reversion without a word of explanation. That's unacceptable. Talk it through here and gain consensus for this change. Thanks. ++Lar: t/c 00:39, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

That is incorrect, I acted hastily, and I apologise. In fact he took my advice and the material inserted the second time is not the same as the first, and it is indeed balanced. Thanks, and apologies for the confusion. I was fooled by the lack of the edit summary. I reverted myself back, so the article is as John's second edit again... ++Lar: t/c 00:43, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Restating financials

Not sure if this is just a blip or if it warrants inclusion in the article, but it seems to have been covered several places. Last week Overstock restated its earnings from 2003 through the second quarter of 2008; SVP of Finance David Chidester cited problems with the implementation of their ERP system that caused mistakes in accounting for customer refunds and order cancellations. References would be: Kanaracus,Chris (Novemeber 2, 2008). "Overstock's ERP Woes Force It to Restate Results". IDG News Service. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help) (carried in NYT and Computerworld) and Sage, Alexandria (Oct 24, 2008). "Overstock posts smaller loss, to restate results". Reuters.; there was also a mention in AP but I don't have the full ref for that at the moment. Shell ^babelfish 05:06, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I had just edited the revenue figures on October 7, 2008 to include the 2007 numbers. I used Yahoo finance as the reference. Since Yahoo Finance has adjusted their reported revenue numbers for Overstock from $760 million to $867 million, I would think we would least edit the numbers to match the reference. user_talk:paulfromatlanta 20:09, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

There's a number of other news stories in national newspapers related to their previous spates of readjustment of previously reported earnings.John Nevard (talk) 01:06, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Bad Redirect from Antisocialmedia Article?

Hi, I came to Wikipedia looking for information about "AntiSocialMedia" because it was mentioned in an article about Wikipedia, here [1]. Wondering who or what this organization is, I searched the wiki, and came upon a redirected article for Antisocialmedia. The redirect is for Overstock.com#AntiSocialMedia.net, but the section does not exist and there is nothing on the Overstock article that even talks about AntiSocialMedia. In other words, having searched for AntiSocialMedia, I am instead delivered to an article that tells me nothing about it.

My question is, is this redirect accomplishing anything useful? And if not, what can be done about it? Is it ok to add information about AntiSocialMedia to the Overstock article? Or should the redirect be removed and a separate article created?

I doubt I personally would have time to devote to editing such an article, because I don't even know about the controversy and I'm unlikely to in the near future, but I would like to prevent another user from having to repeat my futile search/redirect experience. Thanks,

Joren (talk) 14:47, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I ended up nominating the redirect for deletion here. Joren (talk) 04:15, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Unprotection?

Can this article and talk page be unprotected now so that unregistered users can edit and make comments? We can quickly restore protection if necessary. --TS 19:08, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

The Arbitration Committee retains jurisdiction over this article based on Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Mantanmoreland, so any change to the protection will be dependent on support from or appeal to the Committee. Regards,  Skomorokh  19:29, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Here is law journal article that mentions Overstock.com several times, in reference to its litigation. It doesn't seem central to the article such as to warrant placing in your references section, but editors can draw upon it if desired as a resource: http://www1.law.nyu.edu/journals/lawbusiness/issues/uploads/5-1/NYB103.pdf

Huge number of customer complaints on consumer affairs website

http://www.consumeraffairs.com/online/overstock.html

http://www.my3cents.com/search.cgi?criteria=overstock.com

Hundreds of customer complaints on multiple websites CAN'T just be a "fluke". It looks like they're a rip-off company, yet this company only mentions IPO lawsuits. Is someone at Overstock censoring this article???? Macshill (talk) 06:21, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Cottonwood Heights vs. SLC

There was a reference at the bottom that said Overstock lists themselves as Salt Lake City "even though they're in Cottonwood Heights, several miles south of Salt Lake." Actually Cottonwood Heights was incorporated, out of Salt Lake, in 2004. So it's not that Overstock moved or is pretending it's in SLC--it's that their postal address was renamed. Overstock's heyday was entirely served from two offices in Salt Lake, and then the locations themselves changed names. I changed the wording to refelect that. (I didn't mention that their second address is also in SLC, not West Valley.) Check Google Maps on both points...--Mrcolj (talk) 19:59, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Cottonwood Heights was not incorporated “out of” Salt Lake City (that implies that the area “seceded” from Salt Lake City, or that Salt Lake City de-annexed the area, upon which it was then available to be incorporated into another city). No, the area was an unincorporated portion of Salt Lake County from the time of the county’s founding in 1850 until 2005 (not 2004), when the City of Cottonwood Heights was incorporated. For purposes of mailing addresses, the U.S. Postal Service assigned the ZIP code encompassing the area (84121) the place name “Salt Lake City” - a postal designation. Because of this, it is/was easy to assume that the area is/was in Salt Lake City, even though it is not, was not and never has been. Since the incorporation of Cottonwood Heights, the U.S. Postal Service has added “Cottonwood Heights” as an acceptable place name for addresses in the ZIP code 84121. So, if Overstock continues to use “Salt Lake City” in its address - which it apparently is doing - then yes, it *is* pretending to be in Salt Lake City. It’s in Cottonwood Heights - which, incidentally, is a name that was used to refer to the area even before it was incorporated as a city; thus, Overstock has always been in Cottonwood Heights. Period. Schiptuin (talk) 23:57, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

This is not unusual. My address is the nearby city, per the post office designation, even though I'm several miles from the border. It's because the small town where I live cannot handle the volume of mail, so the city takes the load. Similarly my workplace says "Charlotte" even though it's in a neighboring town. And then there's Compaq Computer which says "Houston" but their campus is located ~20 miles away. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.254.121.153 (talk) 17:58, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Query

The section on short selling does not correspond with what I have seen Byrne say in contemporary televiosn interview clips. The impression I received was that the Overstock and associated case were based on claims of abusive shorting to manipulate the market coupled with media smears based on mendacious analysis by a widely used analysis firm. Byrne specifically stated that naked shorting was not being claimed in these cases, but that he believed it was a systemic market problem which posed stability risks to the American economy. Can anyone find reliable cites either way? Rich Farmbrough, 22:55, 20 July 2011 (UTC).

Name change

It seems Overstock is abandoning O.co, as their website now considers o.co a "shortcut". Should the article's title be changed? MyKingdom200 (talk) 12:43, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Do publications meniton it as overstock or as o.co? If it's overstock.com, then I agree we should change it. A simple move of the webpage, IMO, is not enough. Buggie111 (talk) 19:08, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Particularly the second article from CNET: News Results. 173.79.187.25 (talk) 03:14, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't think we should change it. According to this CNET article, Overstock is changing their local name and website name back to Overstock, but keeping O.co for international and mobile things. and they will still be working to move to O.co fully, but slower than they have been going. So, because they are still internationally calling themselves O.co and they are going to be working toward that name, we should probably keep it there. Silverseren^C 07:17, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Google Penalty

The reason behind the Google penalty was misstated in the Salt Lake Tribune article cited by John Nevard. The real reason was explained correctly by the Wall Street Journal and most every other source when it happened. You can read it here. To quote: The incident, according to Overstock, stemmed in part from its practice of encouraging websites of colleges and universities to post links to Overstock pages so that students and faculty could receive discounts on the shopping site. Overstock said it discontinued the program on Feb. 10, before hearing from Google, but said some university webmasters have been slow to remove the links.