Talk:Experts Exchange

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Experts Exchange article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1

Experts Exchange was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
February 15, 2007	Articles for deletion	Kept
February 29, 2008	Good article nominee	Not listed

Current status: Former good article nominee

Archives

2005 – 2008

Site locking out free members

9/5/2009

https://secure.experts-exchange.com/lockedLimitedMember.jsp

"Site access is now limited to Premium Service Members. Convert your account in just minutes and stay connected to the #1 resource for solving technology problems on the web."

====================

Additionally as a premium paying member I was denied the right to post a new question because I had 1 abandoned question that was unanswered and as such left open. After hours and hours of web searching for a solution I turned to Experts Exchange to post a question and after writing the question I found that I could only post it in one category called "Community Support - Expert Input". All I can say was I was even more frustrated than I was before I started the process. I had no idea what was going on, thought it was an update error so I sent a question to their support and was informed that this was the policy. I have since been back and forth with Experts Exchange support and management and they refuse to review their backward policy. A complaint has been filed with the Better Business Bureau and I urge you to do the same. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.252.69.162 (talk) 18:10, 12 April 2012 (UTC) This site doesn't deeserve a Canadian penny. The exerpts are tyros. In thirty days, not one of the so-called experts could answer simple question concerning access to Windows online help service. In fact the so-called experts are front-men for selling computer users anti-virus software they probbably don't need. Total ripoff website.[reply]

Misleading Information

"One must be a member of Experts-Exchange to be able to ask questions. As of late 2007, it is also necessary to be a member to view the solutions."

False. I have never signed up or become a member in any way and I can view the solutions from any computer. Find a question, like this one I literally just clicked the first one I found, such as: http://www.experts-exchange.com/OS/Linux/Distributions/Debian/Q_22781274.html

If you click the link mentioned here it actually asks you to be a member!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.233.200.92 (talk) 03:40, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The question is, "How do I change my hostname in Debian?" The answer is, "owensleftfoot: Change /etc/hostname and run /etc/init.d/hostname.sh start to make the change active Accepted Solution"

It even shows the assisted solution.

Found by scrolling down the page, all the way to the bottom, or by pressing the End button on your keyboard. I have been using experts-exchange just like many other sites on google for years now, and have never had to sign up for any solutions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.93.72.3 (talk) 21:00, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This used to work for me, but currently viewing the source of your link shows no mention of that answer, and the bottom of the rendered page is empty. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.241.210.85 (talk) 18:12, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the system there checks for the referrer. If you come from a search engine (like Google, for example), you can jump to the very bottom of the page to view answers. However, if you go there from any other site, then the answers are indeed invisible/inaccessible. 192.73.45.58 (talk) 15:26, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The website also checks if you're singed in, and if so redirects to the payment page even though you come from Google. You have to sign out, go back to Google and click on the link again to see the solution at the bottom of the page. I think that Google has a policy against web pages that are different when they are scanned with their crawler, so they should defenitely remove Experts Exchange from their index. Jan Aagaard (talk) 09:11, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@192.73.45.58 - Perfectly right. Which is why I wrote the important notice in the lead section "Due to a search engine optimization requirement, answers are still displayed at the very bottom of the page[1], and can be freely viewed by visitors that enter the site via a search engine results page." -- Tom Jenkins ^(reply) 10:02, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Link to a recent comment about EE

This may be of your interest as well! huji—TALK 14:04, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why should this link be of interest, while mine isn't :-)Nico5038 (talk) 22:35, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yours could be of interest too, if it could be cited in the article in a neurtral way, and it belonged to a more credible person. huji—TALK 21:53, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Objections

I have an objection to the following sentence: "Experts-Exchange has more than 2 million solutions now." The reference points to Experts' Exchange own testamonials site, so it's hardly a watertight reference. At best it could be quoted as being "claimed" to have 2 million. Jamyskis Whisper, Contribs 19:29, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is a valid objection. I changed the sentence accordingly. Reference should also be improved as soon as a better reference is found. huji—TALK 11:21, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That whole statement is an advertisement and serves no other purpose. Does Wikipedia keep stats about everything in the world? Try looking for how many problems some newfangled Microsoft Solution Center has solved, within a Wikipedia article. And in the lead section? Surely not. -- Tom Jenkins ^(reply) 11:32, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I object to this: "Experts-Exchange has mostly been among the top 800 visited websites in the first 6 months of 2009, based on Alexa's ranking" Firstly it's current ranking is 988 as of 29 April 2009, secondly the ranking is based on average daily pageviews and visitors over the past 3 months, nothing to do with the 6 months of 2009 that we haven't had yet as of the end of April.

Existance vs Importance

Just because something is there, it doesn't mean it is important enough to be mentioned in a Wikipedia article. For example, there is a user script (mentioned in this article) which allows Google users to remove results from Experts-Exchange in their searches. Since this script was mentioned by (at least) a few other blogs and forums, it was (at least marginally) notable enough to be included in the article. Similarly, there is a PHP script which searches Experts-Exchange for answers to a given question inside Experts-Exchange web site, and imports the answers. It is there, but it doesn't seem notable enough, and is not mentioned on the article.

Same applies for the reverse too. Just because there is another script/weblog/etc on the net which objects EE, it doesn't mean it should be mentioned in the article. We should first see if "others" have shown interest in that script/weblog/etc. If yes (and I mean a big, significant yes which can satisfy others), we can add it; otherwise, we shouldn't.

I hope everyone reads these lines before trying to add/re-add non-notable links to the article. huji—TALK 16:22, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality Dispute

The whole article sounds very self-promoting, for example: "Experts-Exchange has been praised as one of the best technical support sites by some of its reviewers.[25][26][27][28] PC Magazine lists Experts-Exchange as one of the top 101 websites. [26]" Just because there are references, doesn't mean they and the information they convey should be included. Number of solutions and number of Alexa hits also sound very commercial-like. Tsk-tsk, expertsexchange. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.248.107.194 (talk) 15:40, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the section on the basis of synthesis. None of the sources actually say what is claimed and most appear to be promotional style reviews, i also removed the stuff based on blogs and amazon.com as not relevant or reliable. --82.38.254.82 (talk) 08:48, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"For example, there is a user script (mentioned in this article) which allows Google users to remove results from Experts-Exchange in their searches." Link is dead.

--85.183.47.159 (talk) 13:03, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This article seems to be heavily biased to me Gbickford (talk) 17:52, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree, it really looks it was written or at least heavily edited by EE staff to minimize criticism of the site.

Cloaking

Experts-Exchange is abusing of cloaking, and that should be mentioned in the page. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloaking —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.37.8.242 (talk) 10:31, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Advertising

This article sounds very self promoting, with no neutral or negative content. ""Experts-Exchange has been praised as one of the best technical support sites by some of its reviewers" This, and all similar content should be removed. I believe this violates the WP:SOAP as advertising. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.67.229.124 (talk) 07:35, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

EE is one of the worst technical sites, considering the information you could get elsewhere and with less hassle. 68.161.91.20 (talk) 16:05, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

EE Bashing

Interesting how most of the above EE bashers are unsigned... Although I personally agree that the so-called pay-wall should be removed or at least reduced, the claims that EE is cloaking is as of April 2010 untrue and the note that the pay-wall can be bypassed by scrolling down on an answer is still the case. Mplungjan (talk) 08:27, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The paywall is removed only for users visiting from search engines. Going to any solution with no referer (for example, by copy-pasting the link) shows that the paywall is still there. There's another thing, too - would you call hiding the solution so it's technically there (on the bottom of the page), but any casual user will only see the paywall, and won't notice the scrollbar? --HTMLCODER.exe (talk) 14:08, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you can't figure out how to spoof the referer, or for that matter what a scrollbar is and how it works, then you might want to consider employment in a non-IT field. Consider the paywall a minimal competency test. Or just go to StackOverflow instead. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.28.70.16 (talk) 04:16, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Somebody should kill EE once and for all. And who the fuck is Austin Miller and Randy Redberg ?

Criticism removal

Why was the criticism section removed? I must say that while it is trivial to work around the paywall, it is unethical to actually link people looking for a quick and free answer from Google to a paywall. And whatever you guys say about the paywall being removed when referred from Google, I have always encountered and worked around it - and god knows how many times I've been hitting their website. It is a particularly disgusting behavior of EE to somehow rank high in Google, and force the user to pay for the content that CAN BE SEEN in the little description text in Google. And I won't even mention EE breaching several if not all of Google's rules on ranked websites - this is just wrong. I suggest the criticism section be reworded and put back into the article. Ye can't hide thy truth. 121.73.17.17 (talk) 02:56, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't seen this criticism section, but one of the first suggestions I got from entering "Experts Exchange" into the Google search bar was "Experts Exchange scam." A search for just "Experts Exchange" will turn up many results expressing disdain and scorn for the site. Personally, I've found a few gems in Experts Exchange, but like all other sites it's full of shit as well. The Code Project's forums is a much better place to find experts. If Google isn't penalizing sites for generating negative sentiments towards it, it should. It's already done it to many businesses that take advantage of negative reviews for publicity. 68.161.91.20 (talk) 16:02, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't seen this article before the Criticism section was removed, but my first reaction to seeing this article was "Why is there no criticism section?" Their SEO practices are borderline to put it kindly, and the way they imply you need to be a paid member when you really don't isn't exactly ethical either. I wouldn't go so far as to describe it as a scam, but I certainly wouldn't trust a site that behaved the way they do.