Talk:DealDash

Untitled

There are concerns the page is fulfilling the advertisement in a timely member. comment by;24.110.60.177 (talk) 09:09, 16 April 2013

I agree that this page reads like an advert, overly positive and praising, as well as rather dubiously worded statements (DealDash is similar to Ebay, which has been around longer, so how is DealDash the 'longest running site of its kind' exactly? And why exactly is that 'fact' something that needs to be stated here, how is that relevant?). Sources are cited, but many all seem to be pulled from the same exact day, which is rather suspicious. This page could provide a more neutral, balanced view.75.187.210.75 (talk) 02:39, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

While this site is *not* like ebay, it is not unique in any way from the several other "penny" auction sites. Looking at the entry for quibids.com, we get a more complete and unbiased description of what this site/company does. The answers to many questions are clearly in the text of this entry but are diluted. While the price of an item is clearly listed, the site does not distinguish that the currency is different. .01$ on this site is equal to .60$ in US currency thus price listings can be misleading for those who do not distinguish this fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.161.3.163 (talk) 16:17, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

This whole page reads like an advertisement. It seriously needs a complete rewrite. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.49.135.242 (talk) 19:36, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Agreed the site is *not* like ebay and the article does not mention anything about ebay therefore not relevant. The article does point out price of bids: "Bids cost between $.14-.17¢, depending on the "sale" at the time, bids and are sold in lots (Bid Packs) varying in amounts from 200 to 1000 bids" and the Mechanics section provides a thorough description of the service. To help distinguish the currency difference perhaps an addition to the Mechanics should be implemented stating how one paid bid credit ($.14-.17¢) is removed from the users bid balance with each bid placed. 222whitehorse (talk) 12:11, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Has anyone reviewed this lately. It has been hacked in a non-bias way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.100.175.242 (talk) 03:54, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Content reviewed. Hacked content deleted. Furthermore, topics mentioned in the neutrality dispute have been addressed, so dispute tag must be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SailorCook (talk • contribs) 07:17, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Has anyone reviewed this recently? It still reads like an advertisement. The sources are mostly from the site and the only link to a major newspaper, which is critical, does not have that criticism in the page itself. Oakbranch (talk) 09:38, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello, I am Adrian, community manager for DealDash. It has come to our attention that the DealDash article on Wikipedia has been flagged for candidate for deletion due to the use of weak sources in the article. Furthermore some of the comments on this Talk page by experienced Wiki editors suggest that the page "reads like an advertisement". I have tried to address both of these concerns in the below, newly edited version of the article in an attempt to follow best Wikipedia practices as accurately as possible. Thank you for your consideration of the edit request.

Additionally, I’d like to point out that as one of the (now removed, perhaps too ‘advertorial') references to Adweek mentions, DealDash has been noted as the most talked about brand in the world on social media over mega brands like Coca Cola and Walmart. I think this suggests that the company is at a level of interest that it should have its own article on Wikipedia, far trumping in size some of our smaller competitors like QuiBids.com and Beezid.

Dd adrian (talk) 08:49, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Some proposed changes to improve article sources and make it more neutral

DealDash

200px
Type of site	Private
Founded	February 22, 2009 (2009-02-22)
Headquarters	Minneapolis, Minnesota , United States and Finland
Area served	United States
Founder(s)	William Wolfram
Industry	E-Commerce
Products	Online Bidding Fee Auction with "Buy It Now" option
Employees	65
URL	Official website
Users	8 million

DealDash is an e-commerce company based in Minneapolis, Minnesota. The company was founded in February 2009, and operates a bidding-fee auction website in the United States.

==Auction Model==

In order to participate, registered bidders must first buy Bids before entering into an auction. Bids cost 60¢, unless on "sale" at the time. Auctions begin with an opening price of $0.00 and every time someone bids the price increases by $0.01 and removes one paid "bid credit" (60¢) from the user's bid balance.

The auction clock restarts from a maximum of 10 seconds every time a bid is placed. If no new bids are placed before the clock runs out, the last and highest bidder is declared the winner of the auction and owns the rights to purchase the auction item at the final sales price within 14 days of the auction ending. Penny auction sites like DealDash have been repeatedly criticised for not including the cost of bids in the final sales price

Bidders who are unsuccessful at winning an auction can choose to purchase the same auction item at retail price (“Buy it Now”) within 7 days of the auction ending and get their used bids back. The “Buy it Now” price minus any "discount" for the unsuccessful bids need not be competitive with the same item purchased elsewhere. Any unsuccessful bidder not using the option loses the value of the bids placed.

==Criticism==

Penny auction sites like DealDash have often been criticized for failing to disclose or include the cost of bids in what customers actually spend in total to win a product. In most cases, users spend substantial sums of money without winning anything if they choose not to use the “Buy it Now” feature to get their bids back.

In a recent article on The Federal Trade Commison it was stated that some dishonest penny auction sites use bid bots which are computer programs that automatically bid on behalf of the website

In 2014, DealDash was audited by Ernst & Young, confirming that all bids are placed by real customers.

Dd adrian (talk) 08:53, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

References

 Not done I guess it's a show of good faith that you included some relatively unflattering sources, but most of those proposed are blogs, which are not reliable. The FTC site is reliable, but it doesn't actually mention DealDash. Grayfell (talk) 09:23, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Objection to proposed deletion

Hi, Adrian from DealDash here again. We have objected to the proposed deletion, since we don't believe that this article qualifies for an uncontroversial deletion. As previously mentioned on this talk page, we believe that the company is at a level of interest that it should have its own article on Wikipedia. Should there be an AfD process on this article, please check our proposed edits that I have previously shared on this talk page. The edited article has a more neutral and less promotional tone. Dd adrian (talk) 14:05, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Objection to recent changes in "Controversy" section

Hi, this is Adrian for DealDash. I would like to comment on the recent changes to our Wikipedia page by User:Axcelis555. On the recent "Controversy" section that has been added, for the statement "Since bidders on DealDash are effectively buying a chance to win a discount on a product, critics consider the service to be a form of gambling, and several users have sued the site on these grounds." reference number 23 gives the following error: "403 Not allowed". The source should be updated or the statement should be removed.

Furthermore, the statement "And consumer protection agencies have called for stricter regulations of these so-called "penny auction" services, noting how the business model requires items to generate significantly more money than each item's total value." is not referenced. Please add reference or remove statement.

As far as the second paragraph, it reads: "For example, a DealDash television commercial shows "Roseanna" winning a $349 kitchen mixer for "less than $25". But small print explains she bid 761 times on that mixer, which cost her over $456, plus the $25 "price" she won it for. This means she paid closer to $481 - well over the stated $349 retail price." However, this calculation takes into account the face value of bid credits (60¢). With our daily discounts and promotions, bids can normally be purchased for 20¢ or even less. The paragraph should be removed since the information is not accurate.

Dd adrian (talk) 12:40, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

References

 Not done. Source loads fine for me: [1]. Wikipedia favors secondary sources over primary fluff. Your "daily discounts and promotions"? Seriously? Grayfell (talk)

Maintenance template removal

This is Adrian from DealDash. We have changed the primary references to reliable secondary sources. Since the references now follow Wikipedia's guidelines, the maintenance tag has been removed. Let me know if you have questions or comments.

Dd adrian (talk) 08:27, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Don't edit the page directly, please. Forbes isn't a particularly reliable source, as it now mostly relies on 'contributor' content with little editorial oversight and no fact-checking (at least not from Forbes). That article is republished from a Next Avenue "subscriber", which raises more questions than it answers. The originating link describes the author as a "consumer blogger", but I'm not clear on if this is a WP:NEWSBLOG or just a blog blog, making it unusable. Even if it were usable, it's still pretty pathetic for establishing notability because it only barely discusses DealDash as one example of many. Grayfell (talk) 21:27, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

It looks like the Next Avenue source is usable. The author is an experienced journalist, and being published by Twin Cities PBS seems to suggest a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Grayfell (talk) 22:34, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

DealDash response to recent comments by User:Grayfell regarding Controversy section

Thank you for your comments, User:Grayfell. We have been able to review the source [2]. The reference source reads as follows: “On penny-auction sites, bids cost money and that money is gone whether or not you win. If that sounds a lot like gambling, more than a few have sued claiming that very thing.” There is no mention that DealDash has been sued by one of their users, as this has never happened. It seems fair to mention that penny auction sites in general have been sued, but the Wikipedia article currently reads that “several users have sued the site (DealDash) on these grounds” which is neither true nor referenced in the article. This is why we feel that the part should be removed.

Regarding the bid pricing: There are many ways users are able to acquire either free or discounted bids, making the price customers pay per bid on average substantially less than $0.60. DealDash rewards its users with free bids (“Time As Highest Bidder rewards meter”), the auction items can also be exchanged to bids if you don’t want the item shipped out to you (“Item Exchange”), you can get your used bids back for free when you buy the item you tried to win for its normal price (“Buy it Now & Get Your Bids Back”) and most importantly the bids are often on sale at a discounted price of $0.12-$0.15 per bid.

When you take into account all the money users spent buying bids and compare that with the bids used on the site, this all results into the average price a bidder paid per bid used being $0.1217 (in the period of July 2016). Thus, the statement of Roseanna using 761 x $0.60 + $25 to purchase the TV is factually incorrect (761 x $0.1217) + $25 = $117.61 is a more accurate reflection of total cost. What is Wikipedia’s stance on using third party references that are not fully aware of the company’s business logic? It seems like a poor practice to quote third party websites that don’t provide accurate information.

Any advice on how to provide reliable sources on this will be appreciated.

Dd adrian (talk) 12:53, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

I've removed the PC magazine claims. Wikipedia goes by reliable sources. Truth in Advertising is a reliable source, while your comments on this talk page are original research. Your claims about the specific average price for bids during a period of time would need to be supported by reliable sources. That July 2016 time period you mention is also much later than when the advertisement first aired, or when TiNA commented on it in 2013. That's a serious error at best, or an attempt at deception at worst. Expecting any source to be "fully aware of the company's business logic" is totally unrealistic. A reliable source which is blatantly wrong should be challenged, but you would need to do much, much better to credibly claim that's what's happening here. Grayfell (talk) 22:31, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

DealDash response to User:Grayfell on 09/02/16

User:Grayfell Thanks for the comments and insight. I won’t be editing the page myself, but rather propose the edits on this talk page. At the moment, I would like to propose edits in three different areas, in order to improve the accuracy and quality of DealDash’s Wikipedia page:

1) UPDATING THE REFERENCES TO REMOVE MAINTENANCE TAG

The statement “In August 2013, DealDash also created the site DealDashReviewed.com to house and aggregate reviews and testimonials from their customers.” is referenced with these sources: - Are these considered reliable sources? If not, can this statement be removed? There are no other secondary sources that talk about DealDashReviewed.com

The statement “Bids cost 60¢, unless on "sale" at the time”. - Is referenced with a primary DealDash source . Can this source be replaced with this other third party reference?:

The statement “The auction clock restarts from a maximum of 10 seconds every time a bid is placed. If no new bids are placed before the clock runs out, the last and highest bidder is declared the winner of the auction and owns the rights to purchase the auction item at the final sales price within 14 days of the auction ending" is referenced with a primary DealDash source - Can this source be replaced with the same third party reference?:

The statement “Bids can be placed in two ways. Bidders may choose to place single bids, which requires the person to be present on the site and manually click the bid button. Alternatively, Bidders can place bids through an automatic bidding tool called the "BidBuddy". Bidders can add the number of bids they want to place and the tool will automatically bid in the final seconds of the auction in an attempt to keep the bidder at the highest position, which is repeated up to the number of bids added. If an auction is won using the BidBuddy, unused remaining bids, if any, are returned to the bidder's account.” is also referenced with primary DealDash sources . Can these sources be replaced with the same third party reference?

After these changes have been made, there shouldn’t be any references that don’t comply with Wikipedia’s standards, so can the maintenance tag be removed?

2) COMMENTS ON RECENT EDITS

We would also like to propose some edits to some parts of the text, which we believe would also improve the overall quality and reliability of the article:

After the statement “DealDash has been criticized by consumer groups being costly to users, and for having similarities to gambling.” we would like to add this other statement. “Other sources refer to DealDash as a twist on first generation penny auction sites, since the losers can get all their bids back if they choose the “Buy It Now” option for the product. They only lose their bids if they choose not to buy anything.” Source:

On the 4th paragraph of the “Business Model” section, the text states that “DealDash and others have been compared to gambling by consumer groups.” This is already mentioned in the beginning of the article. We believe that it should be removed, since repeating this does not provide any value, and the repetition lowers the quality of the article.

Regarding bid pricing, as mentioned before, the 5th paragraph of the “Business Model” section contains the following incorrect statement: “Small print explains she bid 761 times on that mixer, which cost her over $456, plus the $25 "price" she won it for. This means she paid closer to $481 - well over the stated $349 retail price.” User:Grayfell, you mentioned that the claims we have shared on this talk page about our bid pricing were not supported by reliable sources. This source: mentions the usual discounts on bids. Quoting the article “On DealDash, shoppers buy a bunch of credits, which typically go for between 10 and 13 cents each (the site says 60c, but there’s a rolling promotion that drops the price drastically).”

You also mentioned that the July 2016 time period is much later than when the advertisement first aired, or when TiNA commented on it in 2013. To allay any doubts, we have selected a much broader time frame, and analyzed the figures between 2013 and 2016 (year to date):

Average bid price from 2013 to 2016:

2013: $0.1427

2014: $0.1494

2015: $0.1339

2016 (year to date): $0.1237

Since we have provided a reliable source that reflects the ongoing discounts in bid prices, can the paragraph be deleted or updated to the accurate cost? Taking into account the average bid price for 2013, (761 x $0.1427) + $25 = $133,59 is a more accurate reflection of the total cost.

3) FIXING SOME TYPOS:

The first paragraph of the “History” section now reads “and if they loses that auction they can purchase the item they were bidding for”. It should be edited to “they lose”.

The 4th paragraph of the “Business Model” section reads: “Penny auction, including DealDash specifically, have often been criticized”. It should be edited to “Penny auction sites”.

The 5th paragraph of the “Business Model” section mentions “DeadDash”. It should be edited to “DealDash”.

User:Grayfell Thanks for taking the time to read and implement these edits. If there's anything we can do on our end, please let us know.

Dd adrian (talk) 15:07, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

References

I've fixed the three typos.

In the future, please try to be more brief. Excessive length doesn't increase the likelihood of your proposals being accepted, and usually the opposite, since few of us are eager to tackle walls of text. It can sometimes appear disrespectful to other editor's time, as well.

Your use of "we" suggests a possible confusion (or apathy) about how Wikipedia works. Accounts are expected to be operated by single individuals, and you, as an individual, are solely responsible for your contributions (including on talk pages). Understand?

Replacing your company's site with the Pando article is not related to establishing notability. The Pando article is already used as a source. The problem is WP:CORP, not WP:PRIMARY.

Most of your proposals are too promotional. There were no "other sources", just the one, and it called it a "twist on those shady penny auction sites..." which is very different from what you proposed. It never really clarifies that DealDash is substantially better, although it implies it. That site is from business perspective, which is fine, but since we have a few other sources specifically about it from a user perspective, we should not use passing mentions in one to conceal the unflattering conclusions of the other.

The DealDashReviewed thing is factual. The site downplays its ownership, but doesn't deny it. Better sources would be nice, but as a single line in an article about the company itself, I don't see a problem. I wouldn't object to another impartial user removing it, but I'm not going to.

The lead of the article summarizes the body, so some redundancy is expected.

Your list of average prices is not useful to Wikipedia. Information must be verifiable, so you have not actually provided a reliable source. Regardless, a four-year "rolling discount" raises enough ethical concerns that I strongly object to using Wikipedia for such tactics. If your company's actual price is different from the reported price, then they should stop reporting the wrong price to imply they are offering a discount. If that's not what's going on, and it is possible to get bids at list price, then the TINA article is correct and appropriate, isn't it? That's the entire point of having a list price: it's the price that's used when evaluating something's cost. Either way, we go by sources with a strong preference for independent source. I'm not sure yet if I accept the PandoDaily source as reliable, but even so, it only mentions the discount in passing, while the TINA source is crystal clear and mainly about the cost-issue in detail. Grayfell (talk) 21:45, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Op-ed rant here - feel free to delete. But I felt it important in the discussion to reiterate one fact DealDash cannot refute; In order for this business model to be profitable, they must effectively "sell" products for significantly more than they cost. Therefore, on the whole, this is not a place for "deals". Any "winners" who occasionally get a "deal" are subsidized by all the "losers" who pay more. The only conceivable way this business model works is to deceive users, by obscuring the losers in complicated marketing fluff and doublespeak. The honest way to represent this model is to call it "gambling". Then if people find "entertainment value", that's their prerogative. But the bottom line is that this is a game where people are charged money just for the chance to *maybe* get a deal. I appreciate Wikipedia's ongoing efforts to help users understand - in a cold and factual way - these sorts of basic truths. It's the fundamental reason why NPOV is so important and powerful :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Axcelis555 (talk • contribs) 17:09, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

User:Grayfell Here I provide some additional reliable, independent, secondary sources to clarify the WP:CORP issue and have the notability tag removed from the article. Perhaps some of these references could be used to make the article better, as mentioned in WP:ORGIN

http://www.hightechfinland.com/direct.aspx?area=htf&prm1=1120&prm2=article

http://video.cnbc.com/gallery/?video=3000282042

http://video.ft.com/3607354819001/A-youthful-enthusiasm/companies

https://www.ispot.tv/brands/ISi/dealdash

https://www.worldretailcongress.com/news/dealdash-founder-offers-four-predictions-online-retail

http://jyskebank.tv/21-arig-dealdash-stifter-sadan-kommer-fremtidens

http://startup100.net/top-100

http://www.investinfinland.fi/articles/news/retail/finnish-company-dealdash-attracts-million-dollar-investment/51-103

https://www.tekes.fi/en/tekes/results-and-impact/cases1/2014/dealdash-market-in-the-us/

Dd adrian (talk) 06:58, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Okay, let's go through these one by one:

• High Tech Finland doesn't appear to be a reliable source. It's mission is to "profiles a broad cross-section of the exciting work being done by Finnish companies and researchers".[3] That's not neutral coverage. Also, the byline seems to be saying that it was written by Wolfram! If so, this is thinly disguised self-promotion, and pretending otherwise is unethical.
• CNBC - Interviews are not independent, so are rarely good for establishing notability.
• FT - same
• Ispot.tv - Is this just ad metrics? Not a reliable source, not independent, not substantial.
• World Retail Congress - Not a reliable source. This is a brief profile in a non-notable industry conference, which is pure puff.
• Jyskebanke.tv - What is Jyskebant.tv? I cannot find enough about it to accept it as a reliable source. It looks like it's just another self-congratulatory interview, which, again, is poor for establishing notability. Also, when was that made? It says 2016, but he's still wearing Google Glass?
• Startup100 isn't a reliable source. This is a routine listing from a website with opaque editorial policies. Not usable at all.
• Invest in Finland - This is a press release. It is not independent of the company, and not usable for establishing notability.
• Tekes is one of the company's funders. Its promotional literature is not a reliable source by itself, and it's not independent of the company. Useless.

I appreciate the brevity, but please don't ping me again until you have something much, much better than this, otherwise I will ignore it. Grayfell (talk) 22:38, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Additional sources to establish notability

User:Grayfell Thank you for your patience and your valuable time as I try to learn the ropes of what Wikipedia considers notable and what kind of sources can be used to effectively establish notability. According to WP:GNG, reliable sources “may encompass published works in all forms of media, and in any language”.

Since DealDash has its roots in Finland, a lot of the reliable secondary sources available are in the local language. I tried to compile some of the key ones from 2010 to 2016 which, from my understanding, could be considered when assessing the notability of DealDash. There is plenty of material in these sources that could be cited to improve the article but since English sources are preferred, perhaps these should be considered only for notability. For now a one line translation summarising the article is provided with each link. However, looking at other Wikipedia articles, eg Supercell (video game company), foreign language sources seem fairly widely used, so perhaps it is a possibility.

Most of these stories have appeared in print and the links point to the corresponding online versions of the articles.

Articles from Kauppalehti, a commerce oriented newspaper from Helsinki:

http://www.kauppalehti.fi/uutiset/vuoden-kasvaja-kasvu-430-prosenttia-34-miljoonaan/pQTWiP9z

(DealDash was awarded the Growth Company of the Year in Finland award)

http://www.kauppalehti.fi/uutiset/gen-welch-suomi-tarvitsee-tuhansia-dealdasheja/D5knrhZq

(GE’s Jack Welch: Finland needs thousands of companies like DealDash)

http://www.kauppalehti.fi/uutiset/suomalaisstartupin-liikevaihto-2-vuodessa-6-miljoonaan-euroon/GFqpv6rn

(DealDash increased its revenue more than 300%, Wired Magazine mentioned DealDash as one of the hottest startups in Europe)

http://www.kauppalehti.fi/uutiset/suomalaisbrandit-fbssa-nokian-perassa-2-startupia/gBRfRn9D

(Finnish brands on Facebook: DealDash and Rovio Entertainment following Nokia's lead)

http://www.kauppalehti.fi/uutiset/dealdash-paljasti-menestyksen-salaisuuden/hRcXPtrB

(William Wolfram spoke at Slush (event) and revealed the secrets to success)

http://www.kauppalehti.fi/uutiset/startupin-kova-vuosi-maailman-suurin-alallaan/9EZaNG3J

(DealDash-startup’s tough year: Growth to the biggest player in the industry)

http://www.kauppalehti.fi/uutiset/toiseksi-nuorin-tekes-rahan-saaja-palkittiin/hAA8gSrM

(William Wolfram of DealDash is the youngest person to receive funding from Tekes (agency))

http://www.kauppalehti.fi/uutiset/william-wolfram-voitti-yrittajakilpailun/BUn4qa4x

(William Wolfram of DealDash won Ernst & Young Entrepreneur of the Year Award 2013 contest)

Talouselämä, weekly financial and business magazine:

http://www.talouselama.fi/kasvuyritykset/huikea-kasvupyrahdys-20-vuotias-yrittaja-takoi-31-miljoonaa-euroa-3356456

(Staggering growth spurt: 20-year-old entrepreneur made 31 million euros of revenue)

http://www.talouselama.fi/uutiset/haluatko-ipadin-13-66-dollarilla-talla-tavalla-syntyi-veret-seisauttava-kasvutarina-3449405

(How about an iPad for 13.66 dollars? - Here’s how a shocking growth story was born)

http://www.talouselama.fi/uutiset/startup-yrittajat-rahoituksen-saaminen-oli-helppoa-3409994

(Startup entrepreneurs: “Receiving funding was easy” - William Wolfram: “You don’t always need previous experience”)

http://www.talouselama.fi/uutiset/talouselama-valitsi-tassa-on-20-suomen-kuuminta-startup-yritysta-3351681

(Talouselämä chose: Here are the 20 hottest startups (DealDash one of them))

Tietoviikko, weekly IT and communications magazine:

http://www.tivi.fi/Arkisto/2013-10-23/Miksi-it-ala-ei-Suomessa-mene-p%C3%B6rssiin-3079763.html

(Why aren’t Finnish IT companies going public? DealDash mentioned as one of the examples)

http://www.tivi.fi/Uutiset/2013-03-27/Paljon-puhetta-kansainv%C3%A4listymisest%C3%A4-yksin-on-kaiken-saanut-luoda-ja-oppia-3199637.html

(DealDash has been part of the GAP project by Tekes (agency), done in cooperation with UCLA)

It-viikko, an IT and communications paper published by financial paper Taloussanomat

http://www.itviikko.fi/ihmiset-ja-ura/2013/11/16/parikymppinen-sarjayrittaja-kehittaa-pelimaista-kauppaa/201315921/7

(“20-something serial entrepreneur is developing a game-like webstore where there are no losers”)

Suomen Kuvalehti, weekly family and news magazine founded in 1873

http://suomenkuvalehti.fi/digilehti/232013/han-william-wolfram-kuka-elamani-kuva

(Who: William Wolfram & DealDash, p.54-57)

Libera-säätiö, independent think thank

http://www.libera.fi/viikon-vieras-fi/william-wolfram/

(“Guest of the week: William Wolfram” - DealDash is some form of gamelike shopping experience)

Ohjelmistoyrittäjät, Finnish Software Entrepreneurs Association

http://www.ohjelmistoyrittajat.fi/fi/vieraskyn%C3%A4-asiakas-ei-tarvitse-sinua-eik%C3%A4-yrityst%C3%A4si

(“It is not an auction or a store, it is both and fulfills the needs of both customer segments”)

Taivas+Helvetti vol 2, a book with stories about Finnish entrepreneurs:

ISBN 9789526794648, One on One Publishing “A game of pennies” - the story of DealDash and entrepreneur William Wolfram, p. 252-267

Excerpt from book also available online: http://taivasjahelvetti.fi/tarinat/william-wolfram-senttipelia (“A game of pennies” - summary from the book)

There’s also a book in English about Penny Auctions:

Top Ten Strategies Penny Auction Players Never Want Exposed, PJ Group Publishing, ISBN 9781491012048 DealDash mentioned on p. 12, 19, 22, 23, 28, 31, 38, 39, 40, 49, 57, 60, 62, 63, 71, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 88 & 96 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dd adrian (talk • contribs) 08:24, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

@Dd adrian: 5,900k of links? Quantity is not quality. Just at a glance I can tell that most of these are trivial, unreliable, disguised PR, or spam. It also looks like a substantial share are about the founder, but this article isn't about him, it's about the company. If you want to trim this down to actual, reliable source, I will take a serious look, but this is totally excessive. It is also overly-formatted, making it tedious to even browse. Grayfell (talk) 09:20, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

@Grayfell: I’m sorry to hear that you felt the provided references were excessive.

Since we’re discussing the notability of DealDash, and according to WP:GNG notability is based on “significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject”, I felt that providing multiple links to some of the largest national newspapers covering the subject would be appropriate, especially as “a single independent source is almost never sufficient for demonstrating the notability of an organization”.

I took extra care to start the list with sources which, based on my judgment and your helpful advice, are independent and strictly not unreliable or self-promotional, but instead coverage by well established independent sources who proactively decided to write about DealDash on their own, and in some cases reach out to the company/its founder for commentary. While the tone of the articles can be upbeat and positive, the criteria for reliable and independent sources under WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND seems to be met.

Since you feel like there’s too much material to digest and go through, I can recommend starting from the articles by Talouselämä, the largest commerce-oriented and fully independent newspaper in Finland by circulation, moving onwards to the ones by the second largest independent commerce/trade paper Kauppalehti.

While many of the articles take interest in the founder, they’re all still covering DealDash, containing many nuggets of information the journalist has dug up on the topic.

To be fair, the two last articles by Libera-säätiö and Ohjelmistoyrittäjät were included mostly to diversify the listings, and probably don’t need your thorough review. Having reviewed the guidelines of notability with care and read through the material pointed above, it appears to me that DealDash fits the notability criteria even without the additional links.

Would appreciate to hear your thoughts and if you’d find translations of the articles helpful.

Dd adrian (talk) 12:01, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

@Grayfell: Have you had a chance to take a look at my comment from September 15, regarding the notability of DealDash and removing the tag? From what I have read on WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND, the proposed articles by Talouselämä and Kauppalehti (some of the largest independent newspapers in Finland), in addition to the references that the main article already has ( ), should be enough to establish notability. Please let me know your thoughts. Thanks for your time.

Dd adrian (talk) 11:28, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

References

Response to third opinion request:

The notability tag on the article is justified, as there are not enough reliable sources currently sited in the article to establish WP:CORPDEPTH. However, the sources listed here on the talk page might plausibly cause the company to be viewed as notable per Wikipedia's guidelines. I would recommend picking the best, most substantial available sources not currently in the article and listing them here and/or adding them directly to the article. In general, when there is a standstill about an article's notability, it can make sense to nominate the article for deletion to start a conversation with other editors about whether or not the company is notable. If the consensus of that discussion is that the article is notable, the notability tag can be removed at that time. I will watch this page to see if some usable sources are listed in the way I recommended, and if so I am willing to amend my opinion accordingly. Safehaven86 (talk) 15:55, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

@Safehaven86: Thanks for taking a look and sending me your recommendations. I have selected and added the following references from Talouselämä and Kauppalehti to the article:

As previously mentioned in the discussion, these articles have been independently published by Talouselämä, the largest commerce-oriented and fully independent newspaper in Finland by circulation, and Kauppalehti, the second largest independent commerce/trade paper. I believe that these sources are enough to establish the notability of the company per Wikipedia's guidelines, but I'll be happy to add more of the references I listed on this talk page on 14 September 2016 if you think it's necessary.

Please let me know your thoughts. I will provide translations of the articles if needed.

Dd adrian (talk) 15:15, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

References

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedily deleted because the article has been flagged for WP:A7 disregarding the ongoing WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH discussion on this Talk page. With the newly added references to the article and all the other references listed on this page, DealDash seems to fulfill the notability criteria.

Just to recap, dozens of independent, detailed news stories have been published both online and in print about DealDash and referenced here, including ones by the largest business magazine Kauppalehti (Finland’s largest commerce newspaper founded in 1898) , Suomen Kuvalehti (weekly family and news magazine founded in 1873 ) , Talouselämä (weekly financial and business magazine founded in 1938) , Tietoviikko (weekly IT and communications magazine) , It-viikko (an IT and communications paper published by financial paper Taloussanomat) , Next Avenue , Pandodaily , ArcticStartup , Adweek , Truth in Advertising (organization) , Consumer Reports , and more.

Bidding fee auctions are a notable phenomena. DealDash, according to Google trends, commands 80%+ of search volume / market share in this category in the US.

--Dd adrian (talk) 10:01, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

References

From Top to bottom, long discussion are made citing most irrelevant, high degree of blatant promotions and nothing. This has Zero sign of Encyclopedic notability. Such long discussions to prove any significance is rare, where there are zero notability but blatant promotions. References are highly questionable. itself they are non-notable. It is highest degree of Spam one can create on Wikipedia.Light2021 (talk) 12:32, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

@Light2021: The length of the discussion on the Talk page is not a factor that Wikipedia considers when assessing notability, but perhaps instead it is a reflection on how poorly the original article was referenced. However, WP:GNG says that notability is not subjective and that “significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject” is required. The provided numerous references by the largest and most established independent newspapers in the home country of the business are hardly “not notable itself” or “highly questionable” references. Dd adrian (talk) 14:37, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Dd adrian. In light of the above two discussions and many references, I've removed the "unreliable sources" tag from the page. If someone wants to re-instate that tag, please clearly mark which references they consider unreliable. peterl (talk) 20:49, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Do not Remove COI Tag

It is proven COI. Do not need to remove that tag. Completely ignoring the fact and promoting such people writing themselves. Light2021 (talk) 21:29, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

There is no proven COI at all, I (and others) will remove your tags which are nonsensical and shouldn't be added in the first place, If someone creates a promo article we look at the notability and improve it, We don't tag the living shit out of it and then send it to AFD!, You've been editing for 4 6 years and therefore should know this. –Davey2010^Talk 21:31, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

You are so desperate. Read the bloody "Above notice" if you can read and intellectually capable. Your assessment are on your face! you are incapable of judging me here. you think my AfD are wrong. As you done on ANI. Your piece of shit is all over. People like you RUINED Wikipedia with such Filthy Scams and Spams. Mind your bloody language now. I am done with you. I have contributed my best to remove over 200 such garbage from wikipedia. But people like you, are abundant here to make money out of it or with some other reasons. Which one of them are you? I do not know! (I had to use such language because of such people like you). You have made a mockery of Wikipedia! Light2021 (talk) 21:39, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

I could feed you but I won't!, If you cannot discuss your issues without using sad and pathetic insults then I would suggest you log off and find another hobby, All that aside this article is not spam and this has been explained to you multiple times, You clearly have a vendetta against this article and it's not really a good idea to ave one - Move on and focus on other articles that need to be deleted. –Davey2010^Talk 21:47, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

how easily you are running away from that COI tag mistake. it is COI by any means. You go write blog for people and companies like them. I do not need your intellectual suggestions! You are simply running away from the issue by being a polite man (manipulations) deflecting from the subject. Your real one is already there. Not need to become someone else. First mistake you made to close this article like other amateur ones! and now this one! Light2021 (talk) 21:56, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm not running away from anything ?, They've stopped editing the article (I assume since their last edit in October they've understood the COI side of things), The COI is for repeated COI editing and as I said they've stopped so therefore the tag is rather redundant. –Davey2010^Talk 22:02, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Light2021, the coi tag is not meant to be on an article forever. It is only supposed to be there from the time the coi is identified until neutral editors review the article and cleanup the article so that it is neutral. It looks like that is being done on the article. The sources are being checked and non reliable sources are being removed. The wording is being rewritten to make the prose neutral. Do you now have any specific concerns regarding the neutrality of the article? -- GB fan 22:08, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

I think I have enough said and put forward my concern on AfD. Thanks for coming here and telling me about COI tag.  GB  Light2021 (talk) 22:13, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

My doubt on rewriting with non-notable references. Still promotional :

DealDash obtained early financing from a youth program of Tekes, a Finnish public funding agency.[10] It later raised approximately $1.5 to $2 million in venture financing from the Chief Executive Officers of Rovio Entertainment (publisher of Angry Birds) and Carbonite.[8][11] The company grew quickly, quadrupling its revenue yearly for its first three years. As of early 2012 it was earning $1 million profits on $44 million revenue.[8] By 2013 it had 67 employees, yearly revenues aproaching $100 million,[12] and was ranked as Finland's second-most visible startup based on attention from media, bloggers, influencers, and users.[13] According Socialbakers, DealDash was the most talked about brand on Facebook's "People Talking About This" during a period in May 2013,[14][15] and had the highest engagement rate that September.[16]

In 2013, when Wolfram was still 20 years old, DealDash moved its headquarters from Helsinki, Finland to Minneapolis, Minnesota.[8] In August of that year, the company also created the site DealDashReviewed.com to house and aggregate reviews and testimonials from their customers.[17][18]

DealDash has been criticized for offering poor value to customers and for making disclosures only in fine print.[9]

Penny auction sites, including DealDash specifically, have often been criticized for failing to disclose or include the cost of bids in what customers actually spend in total to win a product. In a conventional auction, bids are based on prices that participants are willing to pay, with the item sold to the final bidder within a set period that bids the highest price. This usually allocates the item to the person who is willing to pay the most. By contrast, penny auctions award items to parties that are persistent or lucky enough to place the final bid, with money raised primarily from the cost of bidding rather than the final price of the item. In most cases, users spend substantial sums of money without winning anything. DealDash and others have been compared to gambling by consumer groups.[4][3]

Remove this, you will be left with 1 paragraph. this is what Wikipedia meant for? A Spam Company profile? Light2021 (talk) 22:58, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

I don't understand how the last two paragraphs that you say should be pulled out above are in any way promotional. They are explaining what is wrong with format/company. It sure does not read like something the company would like said about them. -- GB fan 23:26, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

I dislike advertising articles as much as anyone, and am aggressively opposed to the far too widespread use of Wikipedia as a covert PR platform... but this is not spam at this point. If sources suggest that a company meets WP:GNG, then we reflect that information first as a baseline for any further commentary. There's nothing wrong with using promotional sources for basic details, at least not as a first step in building an article. I don't see any purpose in the COI tag, and more importantly, personal attacks and similar are totally unacceptable. Grayfell (talk) 01:58, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

ArcticStartup

So looking closer, absolutely nothing about ArcticStartup seems like a reliable source to me. It's cited multiple times here, but it's explicitly a PR and events company, and they are not even pretending to be anything else ("ArcticStartup is helping to build communities with uncapped opportunities through media, events, PR and consulting since 2007"). Its about page is useless, but nowhere on that site did I find any indication of fact checking or editorial oversight. This should be, at absolute best, considered an outlet for press releases and similar details. As such, it should only be used for uncontroversial, non-promotional details which are fundamental to the topic. Not much about this form of gambling is going to be uncontroversial, so it's value is limited. Otherwise the site could be used for supporting details of something which is otherwise outlined by neutral sources. Grayfell (talk) 22:15, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for identifying it. You are absolutely right about this one. :) Light2021 (talk) 22:34, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

I'll take a look. It definitely looks like a PR and event promotion shop, but it is also definitely a trade news source, with multiple writers and editorial oversight, covering issues that are not related to paying customers. We might want to ask for some experienced eyes at WP:RS/N. - Wikidemon (talk) 00:51, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

That's probably the next step, but I just don't see the editorial oversight. This looks like yet another part of the rat's nest of start-up culture boosters that have sprung-up in the last couple of decades. These sites are too numerous now to be a true walled-garden, but they're still not good journalism. Almost all of the first few pages in the 'news' section of the site are written by a single person (Tarmo Virki), often two or three a day. They parrot press releases while never saying anything even remotely critical or controversial. There are no other contributors until several pages in, where there's an article which is an obvious press release presented as news, which blurs the line between the company and the PR issuer. The links cited in this article are similarly clear PR for clients. With big red flags like this, any claims to reliability should be hinged on independent coverage in reliable sources. Looking around, I see drips and drabs, but nothing great. This article is also from the rat's nest, but it talks about the company starting a print magazine, called CoFounder, as an outlet for reporting... I think that undermines the journalistic integrity of the main site, though. Why would they be splitting their meager content between two outlets unless there's a difference, and which of those two is going to be the more reliable? Grayfell (talk) 02:35, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Calling startup culture a walled garden of boosterism is a bit of a turn off, and may hint at a different problem. If you took that approach to most any field of life and society — art, dog shows, politics, entertainment, philosophers, neuroscience — you might find the same thing, that specialty sources are largely referring to each other. Nevertheless, if you we can see that they are giving biased coverage in favor of PR clients, or are just a single person hired to do content, that would certainly argue against being a reliable source. Even without being an RS, they are probably okay, and better than the using a company as a primary source, to verify uncontroversial details like a company's (reported) yearly revenue, or what a company executive said in an interview. However, they would not be useful for judging whether the information is noteworthy, relevant, or of due weight, or establishing notability for the subject. For example, a non-reliable source is fine for verifying uncontroverted information that person X invested in company Y, but is not helpful to demonstrate that it matters or is worth including in the article. - Wikidemon (talk) 04:51, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Turn off? I'm okay with that. My point was not that all "start-up culture" is boosterism, or part of a walled garden, but rather that it suffers from a glut of shallow, uncritical media. I firmly believe that and can point to many more examples. There are many start-ups that very easily meet WP:CORP, and coverage about such start-ups can be good or bad on its own merits, but as a whole the community (such as it is) has a shoddy journalism problem. Not all start-up news/blogs are like this but there are a lot of them. That these sources tend to bounce-off of each other makes the significance of whatever they cover often appear much greater than it is, and can create a distorted view of WP:DUE, which seems like it might be the point. That's why I tend to treat them very cautiously, and hold them to a higher standard, and I don't think that's unrealistic. There are plenty of valid and respectable examples of business journalism outlets, but if the only coverage is in these relentlessly positive niche magazines and blogs, or covert native advertising like Forbes, Inc., and Entrepreneur Magazine's contributor content (as opposed to its reporter content) then WP:AUD suggests notability may be a problem. Grayfell (talk) 05:38, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

personal stuff

Wikidemon on your personal issue. Do not go on removing every edit I make on Wikipedia. You are disrupting process merely the DealDash like one using this as references. Where you desperately want to keep that pathetic Spam by doing any kind of thing. Because of removing A7 from that Blatant degree of Promotional blog. Community time will be wasted. For you I am trying to find a better solutions and how to stop you from undoing things whatever I do. People like you, are making Wikipedia a Garbage and dumping zone for such Spam and Scams. You have compromised this source with your malice intend on other editors, misusing this platform for your gain alone. soon I will find out the right way to Protect Wikipedia and myself from such undoing. This is ridiculous. you have made a mockery of Wikipedia by every tantrums and Drama putting here. Light2021 (talk) 04:07, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

I have no idea what you are talking about, but whatever you are trying to say, it is not welcome here. Try to concentrate on editing the encyclopedia, competently, and not getting into insult matches with other editors. Best, - Wikidemon (talk) 04:41, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

You should keep your business onto yourself. And yes! you have all the idea What I am talking about clear as water. Light2021 (talk) 04:52, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

I can see you're having some sort of Wikipedia meltdown, yes. That is not welcome here. If you want to continue work on the encyclopedia, concentrate on content and do not get into insult matches with other editors. - Wikidemon (talk) 05:08, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Light2021, insinuations about another editor's "personal issues" are over the line. These vague accusations and threats need to stop. Grayfell (talk) 05:38, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

sorry to say, but this not vague. As Wikidemon has all knowledge of what is happening. If you go through previous few days activities you will know. But no need to waste your time. Light2021 (talk) 06:12, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Rebuttal to recent edit on this article

@AndyBgoode: This is Adrian from DealDash. The recent edit you added to this article is inaccurate and lacks any kind of reference. Please include a reliable reference for this information, otherwise we will have to undo the edit. Dd adrian (talk) 19:25, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Maintenance tag removal

@Light2021: Hi, this is Adrian from DealDash. I noticed that you added a maintenance tag to the article. Referring to previous discussions on this talk page, including our latest interaction in November 2016, you'll be able to see that multiple edits have been made to this article, in order to meet Wikipedia standards. I believe that the maintenance tag should now be removed, as the article tone is not promotional. Dd adrian (talk) 18:09, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

I removed the COI template, per the discussion here. Consensus was for the tag to not be included in the article. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:38, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Don’t understand bidding

I tried bidding once. Put in $30 and never heard anything about this. Don’t know where the money went and couldn’t bid on anything. Where dose the money go, if you bid on something where do you pay for anything. I thought I could take money out of the $30, but didn’t understand at all. I need this explained to me step by step to see if I should even think of doing this. 2600:8806:205:FB00:5CD:7916:64BE:F0F0 (talk) 13:02, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Shower chair for heavy adults 2601:8B:8580:6FD0:50A3:49C6:CC4A:77F8 (talk) 16:44, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Lead needs to be rewritten

As it is, the lead paragraph does not provide enough information and context, and has no citations (they can be taken from the rest of the article). Let me break it down line by line:

DealDash is a company that operates an online auction and shopping platform. It was founded in 2009, and is headquartered in Minneapolis, Minnesota, United States. The company's platform allows users to bid on and purchase a variety of products, including electronics, home goods, and gift cards.

Firstly, it does not operate as a traditional auction website, and a link to bidding fee auction would be better in this case.

DealDash auctions typically start at a low price and users can place bids to try to win the auction. If a user is the highest bidder when the auction ends, they win the item and pay the final auction price, which is typically lower than the retail price of the item. DealDash also offers a "Buy It Now" option, which allows users to purchase items at a fixed price without participating in an auction.

This doesn't provide enough context and is misleading. It doesn't mention anywhere that you need to buy bids, and that bids are lost unless you buy the item (crucially, at a markup from what it would be via retail). Also, it should provide context that there is no guarantee you have paid less when taking into account price paid for bids + final price, in fact in many cases it will be more. In terms of "Buy It Now", it is alluding to eBay, where it's genuinely just an option of participate in a regular auction hoping for a good price or buy it at what the seller thinks it is worth. Buy It Now needs to clearly state it is related to the auction process and is not separate.

DealDash's own terms of service tell users that they are likely to spend more than the retail cost for products and are unlikely to save money using the site.

Good, although it needs to be mentioned as well that most customers will not even win auctions at all.

I will wait for responses but will be making these changes if nobody objects. MarkiPoli (talk) 10:51, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

misuse case for Wikipedia

A person of ordinary intelligence, reading the lede of this article, is not alerted to the fact that DealDash is simply not a bona fide auction. I presume the blame for this falls on WP policies. I'm not concerned whether the issue is a lack of reliable sources or an interpretation of NPOV really makes no difference.

The fact that this is allowed to stay on WP in this form should completely undermine the credibility of WP.

If a horribly problematic article like this can't be addressed with the standard WP policy, then we need some kind of "exception" process to ensure that harmful, misleading articles such as this one are not allowed to persist. Fabrickator (talk) 09:24, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

I actually broke down line by line what was wrong with the lead in my previous talk page section. I'm going to re write it now because there is no objections after 6 months. MarkiPoli (talk) 06:57, 14 April 2024 (UTC)