Talk:Trustpilot

"TrustPilot may be a Scam"

Here is an interesting post I just came across from the 'Moneysavingexper.com' forums. It appears to be the case that TrustPilot is a scam-

"Trust Pilot are running a lucrative operation. They charge businesses around £800 a year. In return websites get to display the Trust Pilot Seal on their site which is supposed to indicate to customers that they are dealing with a reliable entity. Of course it does nothing of the sort but it looks good.

Trust Pilot's biggest selling point for businesses is the ability to vet reviews and answer customers' criticisms. Plenty of companies complained to Trust Pilot about negative reviews so TP introduced the idea of the 'Verified Buyer' whereby TP's clients can check their reviews for authenticity and request deletion of reviews which they don't believe to be genuine. Naturally some retailers have taken advantage of this system by deleting the rubbish ones. Also the ability to respond to small complaints in an otherwise good review gives the impression that the company cares about customer service.

Fake good reviews have been appearing on Trust Pilot for years and, a few years back, The Register showed how prevalent this was when they investigated a company called iFlorist and found that 100 reviews had been posted in the space of three days most of which gave 5 stars.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/03/29/iflorist_reviews?page=2

http://www.bitterwallet.com/iflorist-comes-up-smelling-of-roses-on-review-site/27464

TP will no doubt say that they've tightened their procedures since then but, having looked at iFlorist's latest reviews I'm still dubious.

http://www.trustpilot.co.uk/review/www.iflorist.co.uk

When I look for reviews I want to read the bad ones as well as the good 'uns then I can form a balanced opinion on the website and its products. The likes of Amazon, Trip Advisor and of course MSE generally don't discriminate against negative reviews and for this reason I will always trust them far more than the likes of Trust Pilot and Review Centre.

A poster on UK Business Forums said this: 'I had a call from Trustpilot salesman and his selling points rang alarm bells, If I paid a annual fee close to £800 I was told I could exclude reviews I didn’t like from being seen via their B2B site which to me defeats the object of a good honest system for the customer to see, also it would rank me higher on Google?. The companies that have signed up to trustpilot have fantastic reviews NO Negative comments and the companies that haven’t have a mixed bag of reviews! How can you trust a system like that?'

http://www.ukbusinessforums.co.uk/forums/archive/index.php/t-245300.html

As to your problem, you would achieve a greater impact if you posted your story on the Praise, Vent and Warnings board. Make sure you name the hotel but be completely factual. MSE forum threads rank highly on Google and other search engines and will achieve far more coverage than trusting Trust Pilot." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:1028:8D1C:741E:9468:C66C:C092:5A21 (talk) 15:10, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Forums are NOT acceptable sources for Wikipedia, not even on talk pages!--BrightYellowSun (talk) 12:27, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Trustpilot has a history of deleting negative reviews and the result is very obvious: most companies paying fees to Trustpilot have excellent average reviews! My experience was that Trustpilot's "customer care" team removed my critical review after the company LVC complained. Then, with the false promise of republishing my review, the team kept bombarding me with requests to provide documentation and then to change the wording and then to increase the description of the full experience etc. etc. You understand, the process is never-ending and is designed to frustrate reviewers into giving up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.40.33.244 (talk) 10:45, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what kind of business this is, legitimate or not. The Wikipedia page should report the factual situation. Please make sure to add references to the internet where this company is mentioned. Then people know that it exists and that it is subject to criticism. Feel free to add a paragraph about all the critisicm, explaining where it comes from, with refernces of course. Wikipedia administrators will make sure that actions to delete such critical information will be thwarted. That's how Wikipedia works. That's also why I changed the name of this topic from an accusation to an objective observation. It does not help to use the Talk page to discredit the organisation. If there are all kinds of internet sources that do so, that in itself will paint the picture of what kind of organisation it is. Lafeber (talk) 08:53, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Untitled

As per the wikipedia.dk talk page on trustpilot [1]:

There has previously been introduced criticisms about this company. These have been deleted - they are now restored. Removal of the negative aspects of a company's rosy description of itself is ridiculous. Please do it trustpilot. It proves them just once more that people who complain you're right. (wrote 91.101.216.93 (disk. • contributions) May 12, 2012, 08:08. remember to sign your posts.)

Competitors re-added Im sure they will be removed by Trustpilot shortly.

Whether there is any need for the external links and indeed the page itself should be open to debate.Benwatsonuk (talk) 13:36, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand how biased, uncited edits and reporting for Notability contributes to Wikipedia in any way. The previous version was well-cited and kept in neutral language. My suggestion: We work together on a version where everything that can be cited with a direct url stays Jokked (talk) 11:40, 11 April 2013 (UTC)JokkeD

OK I suggest that all changes be discussed on the talk page before any changes are made to the article. I quite agree with your comments regarding bias and uncited edits and anyone who works for Trustpilot should declare their interest, and indeed if they work in a public relations capacity not edit this article or work to a code of ethics see public relations and marketing . In a similar vein covert advertising is against European fair trading law as shown in Munich in May 2012 and by the ASA in the UK in June 2012 which is in itself a very interesting topic.

My first proposal would be to delete the external links to Trustpilot websites. Can we choose one external link to the Trustpilot website? see minimise the number of links Benwatsonuk (talk) 21:43, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

The main focus should be on contributing to a facts-driven page and not a biased one, and I think we can work it out. Whoever edits the page is less important.

Removing links in the external links section is not a problem. It doesn't bring much value and I dont know who added them here. As long as the direct links to the blog articles and specific reviews don't dissappear. Jokked (talk) 08:25, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Offshore contractors posting fake reviews on an almost industrial scale should be included? Guardian WebsiteBenwatsonuk (talk) 13:14, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

As this discussion concerns all review sites, my suggestion is to add the link in the criticism chapter there. Jokked (talk) 08:25, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

For this Wikipedia listing to be impartial and not just an advertorial it needs to mention competing review collection platforms including; Reviews.co.uk , Feefo and Reevoo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.238.68 (talk) 19:23, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but I've never seen mentions of direct competitors as an argument for being impartial, mr anonymous competitor. I've removed this part. Please play by the rules! Jokked (talk) 08:03, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Im sure Trustpilot employees will remove all mention of the BBC report. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.184.219.69 (talk) 21:06, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

It seems that biased editors from both sides are making edits. Let us post the verifiably sourced, encyclopedia-worthy facts, please. Not just the good, not just the bad.--BrightYellowSun (talk) 12:30, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Scam!

Guys! This site is scam. Trustpilot is scam. Change this article. --Thisisscam (talk) 15:38, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

I am trying to make this article more encyclopedic.--BrightYellowSun (talk) 12:31, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Open Notification of Edits IP

Hello there. In the interest of full disclosure, I am a Trustpilot employee and I am about to begin adding content to the Trustpilot Wikipedia page over the next few days. I will include detailed edit summaries and edit in small chunks that relate to each other. The intent is to provide additional information about Trustpilot, and therefore correct misconceptions. Wikipedia is a place for facts and neutrality, and I plan to uphold this standard by sharing facts about Trustpilot in a neutral manner. I welcome feedback, and ask for your patience while edits and citations are made. I will post again when I have completed the edits. Thank you. Kindest, A Trustpilot Employee --HumbleTrustie (talk) 16:12, 18 June 2014 (GMT)

Removing competitors is wrong. Heavy handed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.158.242.51 (talk) 14:57, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Trustpilot employees should not be editing its encyclopedia page. That task is solely for neutral, unbiased editors.--BrightYellowSun (talk) 12:47, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Sounds too much like a pitch

This article is written in a way that seems too much like a salesman pitch. Needs serious rewriting. ErdoS (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 23:34, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree; self-proclaimed Trustpilot employees are editing the article, a violation of WP:NPV and other Wikipedia rules.--BrightYellowSun (talk) 14:21, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Deletion of Sentence

Hello again,

It was suggested that I put my deletion of the sentence below in the Talk section to explain further, so here we go:

"This business model may create a conflict of interests regarding how Trustpilot handles negative reviews of companies that pay it.[citation needed]"

I deleted the sentence above because it is not factual. Trustpilot handles negative reviews of customers and noncustomers exactly the same. If you have any questions, or if you would like any further clarification, please let me know ASAP so I can respond. Otherwise, I will delete the sentence again in a week or so, so as not to mislead companies (customers or non) & users.

Respectfully, HumbleTrustie HumbleTrustie (talk) 16:08, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Trustpilot employees should not be making edits at all. Wikipedia is NOT a free advertising site. Please do not revert any of my edits, all of which are in compliance with Wikipedia's policies, as per WP:NOT. Otherwise, I shall get far more aggressive than I have already been and thus hold this article to the letter of Wikipedia's rules.--BrightYellowSun (talk) 12:52, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Deleted Competitors Section

Hello,

A user added the competitor section saying that we were too big not to have one. However, none of our competitors (big or small) have this section. Therefore, in the interest of fairness & consistency, I have deleted the Competitors section from the article. Please let me know if you have any questions.

Respectfully Yours, HumbleTrustie HumbleTrustie (talk) 16:52, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

This is not your page its the publics, if a member of the public or a competitor think the section is relevant you should respect that otherwise this is just a wikipedia PR page for Trustpilot.

Competitors re-added Im sure they will be removed by Trustpilot shortly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by InReviewsWeTrust (talk • contribs)

I'm not with Trustpilot, InReviewsWeTrust, but I've reverted your edit anyway as it contained external links. Add companies back, but only with valid (blue) links to existing Wikipedia articles about those competitors. Stesmo (talk) 22:57, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Fairness is a two-way street. A competitors section does not belong in any company's article.--BrightYellowSun (talk) 13:16, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Editing Trustpilot's article

Hi Wikipedians,

I work for Trustpilot and with your help, I would like to begin editing this article. I’ve been reading Wikipedia’s content and editing policies as well as a number of ‘how to edit’ articles in order to make sure that the edits comply with Wikipedia’s guidelines. While browsing around, I came across Yelp’s wiki article, which has been listed as a ‘Social sciences and society good article under the good article criteria. I would therefore like to use this article as the framework for Trustpilot’s article, and suggest the following as the outline:

Introductory summary (What is Trustpilot, founded in 2007, Trustpilot today etc.)

1. Company history
2. Users and Reviews (Subcategory: Reporting reviews)
3. Features (Subcategory: Business model)
4. Press (Subcategory: Controversy and fabricated reviews)
5. References
6. External Links

Once we have agreed on an acceptable outline, I will begin posting the suggested text for each of the sections on the talk page. I'm open to all feedback and really hope we can work together to create a good article.

Sincerely, Trustpilot (talk) 13:03, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

That's perfectly fine, but you're going to need to create another account please. Also, this is highly recommended reading. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 16:04, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi FreeRangeFrog, Sorry I didn't get back to your before now, I didn't see your message on the talk page. Thanks for your reading suggestion. I have now read Wikipedia's COI, promotional editing, and paid editing policies. I will begin posting suggested edits shortly, as my username has been approved and I have disclosed my interest in the subject on my user page. Cheers TrustieCPH (talk) 09:23, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Trustpilot employees should NOT be editing this page, as per WP:NPV.--BrightYellowSun (talk) 14:23, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Suggested edits to introduction and contents

Hi all! As I mentioned earlier, I will now begin posting suggested edits bit by bit, and have decided to start with this. Once we have agreed, I will post a suggested text for the first section (company history). All feedback is welcome :) CheersTrustieCPH (talk) 08:53, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi everyone! You'll see that this very small initial edit (below) is still requiring attention. It's been a while so could you please let us know what you think, user:FreeRangeFrog? Otherwise I'll assume this initial intro is fine and will add it to the Wikipedia page, and then progress with putting the next bit here that we're thinking of rewriting. Feedback welcome as always! :) Thanks TrustieCPH (talk) 16:53, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Contents

1. Company history
2. Users and reviews (Subcategory 1: Reporting reviews 2: TrustScore)
3. Business model
4. Press (Subcategory 1: Fabricated reviews)
5. References
6. External Links

Intro

Trustpilot is a consumer review website for e-commerce reviews, founded in Denmark in 2007. The website is active in 24 countries and hosts user generated reviews in a number of different languages.

The website’s services are free for users and there are both free and paid options for companies. Trustpilot has offices in New York, London, Copenhagen and Melbourne, and employs more than 400 people.

Trustie is a self-proclaimed EMPLOYEE of Trustpilot who, before my edits, had turned his firm's Wikipedia article into a free advertisement. My recent edits comply with Wikipedia's policies, although not with Trustpilot's self-promoting agenda. Amongst many Wikipedia violations, Trustie has violated this quote from WP:PSCOI: "Do not edit articles about yourself, your family or friends, your organization, your clients, or your competitors." As per verifiable sources, there is significant evidence that a high percentage of the reviews listed on Trustpilot's website are fake, 25% or more according to one source. That problem needs to be mentioned. Wikipedia does not exist to promote companies. The good must be mentioned with the bad.--BrightYellowSun (talk) 11:55, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Suggested edits to Company History and Contents section

Hi all! As I mentioned earlier, I will now begin posting suggested edits bit by bit. I have already changed the two intro sentences, and would now like to proceed with suggesting further changes. As the changes are made, I will alter the contents too to reflect the new sections. One new section is this: Company History. I have pasted the text I am hoping to publish below. Please give your comments and, once that's done, I will paste this into the 'edit' page, along with revised contents. Look forward to hearing from you :) TrustieCPH (talk) 11:39, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello again, I would really appreciate some feedback on the below section. Please let me know if I can go ahead and post this edit. Thanks very much :) TrustieCPH (talk) 12:41, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi all, Since I didn't hear back from anyone, I have posted the company history edit. Should anyone see it and have issues, I am of course happy to discuss the edit and make relevant changes. Best, TrustieCPH (talk) 08:31, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Company History

Trustpilot was founded by the company’s current CEO, Peter Holten Mühlmann, in 2007. He started the company when his parents started shopping online. At the time, he was studying at Aarhus University, School of Business and Social Sciences and would later leave university to pursue Trustpilot.

After raising $3 million in early venture funding from 2008 to 2010, Trustpilot received an initial capital injection from Seed Capital Denmark and Northzone in November 2011. One year later, Index Ventures, SEED Capital Denmark and Northzone invested $13 million in Series B funding in Trustpilot, which the company used for international growth.

In 2013, Trustpilot opened offices in New York and London. In the same year, the company was named Danish Startup of the Year at Next Web’s European Startup Awards.

In 2014, Draper Esprit (then called DFJ Esprit) invested $25 million in Trustpilot, along with support from the existing investors. According to VentureBeat, the Series C funding round would help Trustpilot “bring its online retail reviews service to the U.S.” At the end of 2014, Trustpilot employed 325 people and 400,000 new reviews were posted each month. According to Website Magazine, “Trustpilot soared in 2014,” and experienced “record growth with an 80 percent year-over-year increase in revenue.”

In March, 2015, Google announced it was launching product ratings in Germany, the UK and France. In order to do this, “Google is aggregating data in Europe from different sources” including third party aggregators like Trustpilot. Shortly after, Trustpilot announced that it would begin introducing product reviews as a “Google approved product ratings partner.” Trustpilot also has a licensing agreement with Google, allowing Trustpilot reviews to be listed as Google Seller Ratings, or “Google Stars.”

In May, 2015, Trustpilot received $73.5 million in Series D funding. The investment was led by Vitruvian Partners, with contributions from all existing investors. According to the Wall Street Journal, the company plans to use the investment “to become the dominant source of user-generated reviews of businesses online.” The number of reviews on Trustpilot reached 13 million in 2015 - “averaging one review every five seconds.”

Trustie is a self-proclaimed EMPLOYEE of Trustpilot who, before my edits, had turned his firm's Wikipedia article into a free advertisement. My recent edits comply with Wikipedia's policies, although not with Trustpilot's self-promoting agenda. Amongst many Wikipedia violations, Trustie has violated this quote from WP:PSCOI: "Do not edit articles about yourself, your family or friends, your organization, your clients, or your competitors." As per verifiable sources, there is significant evidence that a high percentage of the reviews listed on Trustpilot's website are fake, 25% or more according to one source. That problem needs to be mentioned. Wikipedia does not exist to promote companies. The good must be mentioned with the bad. I will be suspicious of any Wiki editor who agrees with Trustie that the article should be returned to its former advertisement self.--BrightYellowSun (talk) 11:54, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Suggested new section and text: Users and reviews

Hi everyone! I am posting another suggested edit in hopes of getting some feedback. As described earlier on the talk page, I am suggesting edits to the Trustpilot article here and slowly trying to update / improve the content. Any feedback would be greatly appreciated :) Cheers, TrustieCPH (talk) 11:15, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello again! It would be really great to get some feedback before posting this edit. Can someone take a look at it please? Thank you in advance for your help :) Cheers, TrustieCPH (talk) 08:18, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Users and Reviews

Trustpilot relies on the public to review their recent buying experiences with online merchants. Consumers can leave a review by creating a profile on Trustpilot using their e-mail address or Facebook account.

When a customer leaves a review of a company on Trustpilot, a company page is automatically created. Companies are not able to opt-out of, or remove their Trustpilot profile.

Reporting reviews

According the company's website, reviews are not monitored or controlled on Trustpilot, but both consumers and businesses can flag a review if they think it violates the company’s guidelines. Companies cannot remove or edit reviews, but they can publicly respond to reviews on their Trustpilot profile.

TrustScore

In addition to the review itself, each reviewer assigns a star rating (from one to five) to the company under review. These star ratings are entered into an algorithm (based on temporality and other factors) to create the TrustScore (between 0.0 and 10.0). This TrustScore is included in the company’s Google Seller Rating.

Whoever posted the above info seems to have a connection with Trustpilot, whose own website alone is not a verifiable source.--BrightYellowSun (talk) 12:33, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

This article is a mess!

This article is little more than an advertisement for trustpilot.com. I may propose that it be deleted.--BrightYellowSun (talk) 12:18, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

BrightYellowSun Thank you for your feedback, but I have to say, I don't see this as unbiased. I have worked hard to try and use suggested edits and have asked for feedback multiple times. I have not suggested edits for the rest of the article yet, as I did not receive any feedback. On my talk page I disclosed my conflict of interest as requested by the editors, and am very willing to work together with the Wikipedia community to create a good article. As mentioned earlier, I followed the example of Yelp and other good wikipedia articles, and would like to continue to do so. These edits would not be accepted there, and I therefore made a few factual corrections in your edits. However, I would like more established editors to take a look, so we can create a good article together. Best, TrustieCPH (talk) 15:08, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Trustpilot.com (aka Trustpilot) is a website founded in Denmark in 2007. Consumers post reviews for online businesses, which Trustpilot is free to delete or edit at will. The site charges fees to merchants to promote their businesses. The website is active in 24 countries and hosts user-generated reviews in a number of different languages.

Your false accusations against me and my edits are highly hypocritical. You are the owner (or an employee) of the company about which the article is written. You have wrongly deleted well-sourced edits. Do not start an edit war with me or I will take the necessary actions against you.--BrightYellowSun (talk) 16:24, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

BrightYellowSun Together with established Wikipedia editors and the wider WIki community, people that have disclosed their interest in the subject are allowed to edit. It should of course be done with care, which I have tried to do. I have repeatedly asked for feedback from the wiki community and stopped posting suggested edits as I wanted to get feedback before continuing. The TripAdvisor and Yelp talk pages are good examples of such cooperation. I completely understand that both the good and the bad must be part of the article, and hope to work together with Wiki editors in order to create such an article. Cheers, TrustieCPH (talk) 08:00, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Trustie is a self-proclaimed EMPLOYEE of Trustpilot who, before my edits, had turned his firm's Wikipedia article into a free advertisement. My recent edits comply with Wikipedia's policies, although not with Trustpilot's self-promoting agenda. Amongst many Wikipedia violations, Trustie has violated this quote from WP:PSCOI: "Do not edit articles about yourself, your family or friends, your organization, your clients, or your competitors." As per verifiable sources, there is significant evidence that a high percentage of the reviews listed on Trustpilot's website are fake, 25% or more according to one source. That problem needs to be mentioned. Wikipedia does not exist to promote companies. The good must be mentioned with the bad. I will be suspicious of any Wiki editor who agrees with Trustie that the article should be returned to its former advertisement self.--BrightYellowSun (talk) 11:50, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

WP:NPV

Employees of a company should not be editing its article: WP:NPV. Most of the employee-made edits which I have just reverted are absurdly biased in favor of Trustpilot and amount to nothing more than free advertising. Wikipedia is not a free advertising site: WP:NOT. We must include the good with the bad. There is overwhelming evidence that trustpilot.com has fake reviews listed, according to several verifiable sources. That and other negative facts must be included, along with positive info.--BrightYellowSun (talk) 17:11, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Trustie is a self-proclaimed EMPLOYEE of Trustpilot who, before my edits, had turned his firm's Wikipedia article into a free advertisement. My recent edits comply with Wikipedia's policies, although not with Trustpilot's self-promoting agenda. Amongst many Wikipedia violations, Trustie has violated this quote from WP:PSCOI: "Do not edit articles about yourself, your family or friends, your organization, your clients, or your competitors." As per verifiable sources, there is significant evidence that a high percentage of the reviews listed on Trustpilot's website are fake, 25% or more according to one source. That problem needs to be mentioned. Wikipedia does not exist to promote companies. The good must be mentioned with the bad. I will be suspicious of any Wiki editor who agrees with Trustie that the article should be returned to its former advertisement self.--BrightYellowSun (talk) 11:53, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Request for help: Editing Trustpilot's article

I don't feel a consensus can be reached with BrightYellowSun and would like to involve other editors in order to resolve this dispute. I have not submitted an edit request, as I haven't received feedback on the suggested edits that have been made on the talk page. I don't want to enter into an edit war, and I have therefore made a WP:3O request. I hope to hear from someone there, or in the wider Wiki community soon. Best, TrustieCPH (talk) 08:28, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Trustie is a self-proclaimed EMPLOYEE of Trustpilot who, before my edits, had turned his firm's Wikipedia article into a free advertisement. My recent edits comply with Wikipedia's policies, although not with Trustpilot's self-promoting agenda. Amongst many Wikipedia violations, Trustie has violated this quote from WP:PSCOI: "Do not edit articles about yourself, your family or friends, your organization, your clients, or your competitors." As per verifiable sources, there is significant evidence that a high percentage of the reviews listed on Trustpilot's website are fake, 25% or more according to one source. That problem needs to be mentioned. Wikipedia does not exist to promote companies. The good must be mentioned with the bad. I will be suspicious of any Wiki editor who agrees with Trustie that the article should be returned to its former advertisement self.--BrightYellowSun (talk) 11:49, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Edit justifications

Due the disagreement between me (a neutral editor) and Trustie (a self-proclaimed employee of the article's subject), I shall briefly justify my recent edits. Review writers must be called "purported" because of the high percentage of trustpilot.com's fake reviews (25% or more, according to one source.) Merely listing a Facebook or email account does not "authenticate" a user. All encyclopedia-worthy controversies should be included in the article. All advertising content should be deleted. Multiple verifiable sources should be included for controversial issues, due to link rot, challenges, and the like. The FULL story about all encyclopedia-worthy aspects of Trustpilot should be mentioned, not just those that favor the company. Upon request, I will justify any other edits. Also, a company website is not a neutral/verifiable source for its own Wiki article.--BrightYellowSun (talk) 12:06, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

BrightYellowSun - I completely agree that the article should include all sides, both the good and the bad. When listed in the correct section, and without the same sources being repeated in each section, this helps to provide readers with a complete picture of the subject of the article. I apologise if some of the previous content had an advertising feel, but I did try hard to reach out to editors to ask for feedback. As stated in Wikipedia's WP:EDITREQ article, editors with a conflict of interest should post suggested edits on the talk page and then ask for feedback. Since I didn't receive any feedback, the article stagnated and I didn't finish suggesting edits. The full article I wanted to suggest, included a detailed controversy section, as any good Wiki article should. As stated earlier, I feel that it's necessary we involve a third party to mediate this edit. Best, TrustieCPH (talk) 14:44, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

You are hardly the first employee/owner who has edited his company's article, and it is natural that you would use Wikipedia as a form of free promotion. However, we need neutral editors, not those who only tout the positive or negative. We do not need an official government judgement against Trustpilot.com to make fake reviews posted thereon an encyclopedia-reportable issue. By that standard, reporting Trustpilot's positives should also require an official government action to support them. The several verifiable media sources already listed are sufficient as proof of the negatives. I suggest adding such sources, not your company website, to support the positives. Otherwise, it looks like you are using the article as a means to repeatedly plug your firm's website. Notice that a few of this talk page's negative posts refer to online forums, which are never acceptable to use as sources on Wikipedia, not even on talk pages.--BrightYellowSun (talk) 15:45, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

I very much agree that we need neutral editors. I have been calling out for editing help since August, however, I have not heard anything. I am aware that the article needs continued editing, however, it should be done with a with a neutral third party (WP:3O), and not just us. The new sources added are verifiable, and can of course be included in the article, however, repeating them in each section does not follow Wikipedia's content or sourcing guidelines. When using Trustpilot's own website as a source, I was simply following Yelp's article, which has been classified as a Wikipedia social sciences and society good article, as well as TripAdvisor's article, which has also been edited with the help of the wider Wiki community. I have refrained from further editing the text recently added, as I don't wish to start an edit war, however, Wikipedia policy clearly states that edits to an article should be suggested on the talk page and not posted directly to the article. I hope a neutral editor will become involved soon. Best, TrustieCPH (talk) 08:06, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

You seem to be suggesting that I am not a neutral editor, which is not the case. I have even defended your firm on this talk page and in the article. But the point that you seem to be missing is that fake reviews plague consumer review sites, especially yours -- as per the sources listed. That is a significant fact that needs to be highlighted. What occurs on Yelp's article has nothing to do with Trustpilot's. Wikipedia is not a court of law. You cannot quote edits in other articles the way that attorneys quote case law. Some of the entires in Yelp's article blatantly violate Wikipedia's policies. I have already explained that the multiple sources listed in Trustpilot's article are absolutely necessary to support the claims made in each edit. Clearly, you are not a neutral editor, as you are the owner or an employee, and as I suspect most if not all employees are, you seem to be a bit brainwashed by your loyalty to your employer. You seem to think that Trustpilot is perfect or nearly so. But that is human nature; your attitude is expected and perfectly reasonable. I mean no disrespect at all, but we need to make this article encyclopedia-worthy. Also, please keep in mind that any article's lead is supposed to summarize the balance of an article. The lead's prior form was not even close to doing that. It included information that was not even contained anywhere else in the article.--BrightYellowSun (talk) 12:40, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Trustpilot reviews on its own site

Review sites are not usually accepted as verifiable sources. But since Trustpilot uses its own website as a source, reviews listed thereon about itself, which it has approved, should be encyclopedia-worthy. Thus, I propose adding to the article the fact that 31.3% of Trustpilot reviewers rated the firm one star on its own site, with well over half of all reviews actually being one star counting deleted reviews (which no doubt gave one star and Trustpilot acknowledges exist.) A huge percentage of the one star reviews accuse Trustpilot of allowing fake rave reviews but deleting authentic negative reviews. The aforementioned facts have already been pointed out by others on several other websites.--BrightYellowSun (talk) 12:39, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Third Opinion

A third opinion has been requested. Is there any specific question? Third opinion is a light-weight process in which the volunteer editor normally answers a concise question. It is clear that there has been a lengthy exchange between a paid editor and another editor, and that the paid editor appears to be alleging that the other editor is not neutral (a strange twist). Can one of the two editors please provide a concise question for which a third opinion is being requested? Robert McClenon (talk) 15:23, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi Robert McClenon, thank you for replying to the 3O request. The editor is an unsatisfied Trustpilot user, and a third opinion has therefore been requested. I would first like to ask whether it is allowed to repeat the same sources throughout the article without those sources referring to the text. For example, after writing that the website is active in 24 countries, four unrelated sources are listed. See here: . Furthermore, none of these sources support the statement that Trustpilot is free delete reviews. These same sources are then repeated several times in the Products, Controversy and Reporting Reviews section. Thank you very much for your time. Cheers, TrustieCPH (talk) 08:34, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

I am not an "unsatisfied Trustpilot user", I am a neutral editor who is trying to neutrally edit an encyclopedia article. As if I have to justify myself, I enjoy editing articles whose subjects interest me. Certain of the sources are repeated because each contains bits of info which support each edit. Nonetheless, I shall doubled check my edits to verify my contention. Curiously, Trustie had no problem using his own company website as a source possibly dozens of times, a thinly veiled effort to use Wikipedia to repeatedly plug his site. Trustpilot is free to delete reviews -- according to its own website disclosures as well as certain of the sources. It is hypocritical and sanctimonious for Trustie to falsely accuse me of being biased while he simultaneously tries to use his firm's Wikipedia article as a free advertisement.--BrightYellowSun (talk) 11:54, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Regarding Trustie's claim that the four references listed to do not support the info about Trustpilot being active in 24 countries, the four references actually support info that appears before it.--BrightYellowSun (talk) 12:00, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

When using those references I was looking at other articles on similar subjects who do the same. You have before stated that that isn't okay, but I will ask the 3O editor to make sure. However, all I wanted was to improve the article with the help of the wiki community. Since I never heard back from any editors, the edit stagnated. I have declared my COI, so together with a third editor, I would like to continue to suggest edits and improve the article. This is the protocol stated for editors with a COI and I hope we can be reasonable and work together to do this. TrustieCPH (talk) 13:41, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

If you are going to use Trustpilot's website to source the positive on its own article, we should also use it to source the fact that over 31% of reviewers gave Trustpilot a one star rating on its own review site, with a huge percentage of other presumably one star ratings acknowledged by Trustpilot as having been deleted. Thus, something like two thirds of all users who reviewed Trustpilot gave it a one star rating, a significant fact that bears noting. The vast majority of the published one star reviews accuse Trustpilot of permitting fake positive reviews, deleting genuine negative reviews without cause, and/or similar wrongdoing. We could also mention that over 40% of reviewers rated Trustpilot five stars, but we should qualify that fact by adding that -- according to one source -- over 25% of all five star reviews on trustpilot.com are fake. We need to include encyclopedia-worthy facts without letting biases get in the way. And I am a conservative who supports and encourages free enterprise, so please do not again falsely accuse me of being biased against a successful company and thus anti-corporation. I invariably try to be neutral when editing articles.--BrightYellowSun (talk) 14:17, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

I am not sure what the third opinion request was for. However, since it appears that a paid editor is saying that dissatisfied Trustpilot users are biased, and that paid editors are entitled to enforce a promotional tone, I have put a COI tag on the article. I would advise the paid editor to read the boomerang essay before attempting to remove the COI tag.l Robert McClenon (talk) 14:36, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi Robert, thank you for your reply. I did not request a TPO, Trustie did. Please note that I am not a dissatisfied Trustpilot user. That lie was concocted by Trustie because I have deleted much of the advertising from his firm's page. I am simply trying to edit an article whose subject interests me (actually, online reviews in general.) Unfortunately, that means including the encyclopedia-notable fact that many of the reviews on Trustpilot's website are fake, as per the verifiable sources.--BrightYellowSun (talk) 12:20, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

I am about to delete the COI tag because I believe that most if not all of the advertising fluff has been deleted. The article now lists the encyclopedia-worthy good and bad. Please reinsert the tag if you feel that I am wrong, but if possible offer an explanation.--BrightYellowSun (talk) 09:14, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry if it came across that way, I in no way want to enforce a promotional tone or feel I have the right to. It was my impression that it was a dissatisfied user, and therefore thought it would be best to get someone to mediate the edit. I asked a specific question in my earlier post and would still like a 3O if possible. Again, I apologise if my message came across the wrong way, that was not my intention. TrustieCPH (talk) 07:21, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Non-company source

To avoid a conflict of interest, please use non-company sources. I have deleted a Trustpilot source in several places and added a citation-needed tag. Hopefully, another editor will replace the Trustpilot source with a verifiable source in each place.--BrightYellowSun (talk) 12:33, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Suggestion for opening sentences

BrightYellowSun It's good to see that you've taken an interest in the article. I hope we can work through the edits piece by piece and come to an agreement. Here is my suggestion for the first two sentences:

Trustpilot.com is a website founded in Denmark in 2007. Consumers can post reviews for online business, which are subject to Trustpilot's user guidelines.

I suggest we remove purported. I don't think a small number of users not being real justifies the use of the word. To me, the word has a negative connotation and slants the sentence. I realise that may not be much coming from me, so I'm of course happy to ask for a third opinion. Also, Trustpilot is not free to delete reviews at its discretion. Reviews are only removed if they contravene Trustpilot guidelines, as stated in source listed. Best, TrustieCPH (talk) 13:34, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

It is curious that you have chosen to ignore all other posts on this page in lieu of promoting your agenda in this post. Wikipedia is a verifiable source-based encyclopedia; edits must be made based on what is contained in such sources. As noted in certain of the sources, anyone can claim to be a consumer and post a review on trustpilot.com. Using an email address or Facebook account does not authenticate the user, as your deleted edits have falsely claimed. Considering the fact that about two thirds of reviewers posted a one star review for Trustpilot on its own website, counting presumably one star reviews deleted but acknowledged by Trustpilot, and most of those negative reviews have accused Trustpilot of allowing fake positive reviews to remain and/or deleting genuine negative reviews, there is no reason why the opening sentence should be changed. Also, according to the verifiable sources, Trustpilot is indeed free to remove reviews if it feels they do not meet their standards -- and thus at their discretion, which seems to conflict with real consumers' standards. If necessary, I intend to research additional sources to further support my edits.--BrightYellowSun (talk) 21:09, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your quick response. I certainly don't want to ignore the other points on the page, I just don't feel that each sentence needs to reflect the negative aspects. Again, I refer to articles that have been through the WP:WIAGA process. These articles don't use slanted words in the opening sentences. Best, TrustieCPH (talk) 08:06, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

There are numerous violations in Yelp's article. Just because they exist there does not mean that they can exist on Trustpilot's article. According to a verifiable source, review sites such as trustpilot.com have fake reviewing on "an almost industrial scale." That is a significant fact that needs to be noted in the lead, which is a summary of the balance of the article. Not including that info would be "slanted", as it would imply that all reviews appearing on the site were posted by true consumers. Your previous edit suggested that merely having an email address or Facebook account proves the genuineness of a reviewer, a contention that is patently false. Again, you are an employee or owner of Trustpilot; I am unsure about how you could possibly be unbiased when editing its article.--BrightYellowSun (talk) 11:37, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Third Opinion

Another third opinion has been requested. It once again appears, and I may be mistaken, previously, that a paid editor was trying to use third opinion to enforce a promotional tone, and, now, that a paid editor is trying to use third opinion to keep negative content out of the article. I am not providing the third opinion, because I am no longer neutral, and am not removing the third opinion request. I would suggest that future issues about this article be taken to the conflict of interest noticeboard or the neutral point of view noticeboard, and, those failing, to WP:ANI. Unfortunately, it does appear to me that a paid editor is trying to use the dispute resolution process to game the system, but I may just be being cynical, or I may have failed to get the memo that Wikipedia is now being written primarily by paid editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:37, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

You are not mistaken; a paid editor is again trying to use Wiki as a free advertising site. Trustpilot's own website (re: "Terms and Conditions") supports some of the negatives included in their article, such as the fact that Trustpilot is free the delete reviews "at any time and without notice or explanation".--BrightYellowSun (talk) 18:04, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request:

When joining Wikipedia I stated my COI and have followed the guidelines for paid editors. I believe in the foundation underlying Wikipedia and don't want to enforce a promotional tone. As you can see from my earlier posts, my intention was to suggest edits and ask the wider Wikipedia community for help. When a dispute arose, I used the dispute resolution process as suggested by Wikipedia's guidelines. I'm sorry if these actions came across the wrong way, this is not at all what I intended. Best, TrustieCPH (talk) 07:53, 23 October 2015 (UTC) You have taken on a job that is almost impossible to do, which is to be a paid editor while accepting neutral point of view. The WMF permits disclosed paid editing. Some editors think that the WMF should be even stricter about paid editing than it is. It appears that you have discovered why being a neutral paid editor is nearly impossible, which is that you actually thought that your edits and your use of dispute resolution were intended to maintain neutrality, when the community thought that your edits and your use of dispute resolution were intended to enforce a promotional tone. You meant well, but what you are being paid to do, edit neutrally while being paid, is so hard to do that, in my opinion, it shouldn't be attempted. My advice, in the future, is, first, to avoid editing the article itself, and to request edits on the talk page and let neutral editors decide, and, second, be very cautious in using dispute resolution, because, despite your good intent, you will be seen as trying to game the system. That is my advice. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:45, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

I actually agree with BrightYellowSun's suggestion to the intro. What I don't agree with though, Sun, is the way you keep repeating yourself section after section. I have seen this exact same comment in at least three places on this talk page: “ Trustie is a self-proclaimed EMPLOYEE of Trustpilot who, before my edits, had turned his firm's Wikipedia article into a free advertisement. My recent edits comply with Wikipedia's policies, although not with Trustpilot's self-promoting agenda. Amongst many Wikipedia violations, Trustie has violated this quote from WP:PSCOI: "Do not edit articles about yourself, your family or friends, your organization, your clients, or your competitors." As per verifiable sources, there is significant evidence that a high percentage of the reviews listed on Trustpilot's website are fake, 25% or more according to one source. That problem needs to be mentioned. Wikipedia does not exist to promote companies. The good must be mentioned with the bad. I will be suspicious of any Wiki editor who agrees with Trustie that the article should be returned to its former advertisement self. ” In addition, Sun, I have also noticed that you have been responding to SPAs who have made single respective edits to this talk page; thus, you're really wasting your time doing that. But to elaborate on that, all of Trustpilot's employees who are still hanging around this talk page might want to read WP:NOTAD. Erpert blah, blah, blah... 23:57, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm sure that they have read it. This is a case of I didn't hear that because I am not listening. Or maybe there has been a memo from the WMF that we didn't get that states that paid editors are now welcome to maintain articles. (Yes, I know that, on the Internet, no one knows that you are being sarcastic.) Thank you, User:Erpert, for providing a third opinion. If any paid editor continues to have issues about this article, I suggest that they go to the neutral point of view noticeboard after reading the boomerang essay. I suggest that any issues about this article by neutral editors be taken directly to WP:ANI, because we know that there is conflict of interest. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:45, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you both for your comments. I have repeated posts because they applied perfectly to the biased suggestions posted by employees. I am merely trying to get the article to be encyclopedic, not be an advertisement nor a bashing page. And by the way, please do not use the Yelp article as a reference when editing Trustpilot's. Many lawsuits have been filed against Yelp for allowing fake reviews and/or extorting fees from reviewed businesses, yet all of the adjudicated suits were dismissed on a summary judgement. Those results mean that there was not even enough evidence to get the allegations heard in a civil trial.--BrightYellowSun (talk) 12:32, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

References

Remove "close connection" tag"?

Another editor reinserted this tag after I removed it, but why? Trustpilot employees are no longer editing the page and I have already deleted all of their advertising fluff. As such, unless someone gives a valid reason not to, I shall again delete the referenced tag.--BrightYellowSun (talk) 12:39, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Lede

I've once again reworded the lede. Yes, it should summarise the article - however it doesn't need to be pointy throughout. In this case, leaving it as a customer review site, then explaining of what in the next sentence appears to be a good way of doing this. Mdann52 (talk) 13:43, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

As per Wp:LEAD, "The lead...should...summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies.". Your version does not and is grammatically incorrect.--BrightYellowSun (talk) 14:54, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Grammar fixed - thanks for pointing that out. And your version is hardly much better - fake online reviews are an issue over many other sites, but for example this does not appear in Yelp's lede despite having a rather large section later on in the article. Mdann52 (talk) 16:15, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

What happens at other articles is irrelevant. My lead is appropriate because it properly summarizes the article, yours is not, re: WP:LEAD.--BrightYellowSun (talk) 17:46, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, but the content also needs to be in line with reliable sources - which it is not currently, as far as I can see. Also, how other articles handle this issue is IMO relevant here. Mdann52 (talk) 17:48, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia's rules specifically mention that similar articles should not always be used as a guideline because of the many errors present throughout its site. Also, I have found a far higher proportion of negative, reliably-sourced articles about Trustpilot than about any other review site. And all of the entries in the TP article are indeed reliably sourced. You are clearly biased in favor of Trustpilot and should not be editing the article.--BrightYellowSun (talk) 18:24, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Note: I do intend to go over the article with a fine tooth comb and try to make edits which will conform to your requests.--BrightYellowSun (talk) 18:29, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

The lead, as it currently reads, is too specific. The criticism the company has received IMO does not hold enough weight for inclusion. There are fake reviews on countless websites. Having a Criticism section in the body of the article is adequate but I do not think it should be included in the lead. Meatsgains (talk) 18:31, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

The use of "purported" in the lead is a red flag for WP:NPOV issues. I concur with Mdann52 that the lead appears to be non-neutral in form. Phrasing in later sections of the article body is also concerning. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 18:32, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. I'll make the appropriate changes.--BrightYellowSun (talk) 18:36, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Summoned from the neutrality board. My two cents is to avoid "purported". Sometimes it's hard to draw a line between a scam operation and a "legitimate business" that has one or two questionable practices. After reviewing the sources, my sense is that Trustpilot represents the latter rather than the former.

As such, I think we should be cautious to avoid words which might infer Trustpilot is some kind of scam operation in the lead. We can expand on the "fake reviewers" issue in the body of the article.

It would probably be OK to use words like "purported" if a significant number of the RS's covering Trustpilot, covered it from the perspective of it being a sham and/or scam. My reading of the sources though indicates that this is not the case. NickCT (talk) 16:40, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - Chiming in from the NPOV noticeboard, it appears the lead is too pointy and pushes a particular point of view. When reading the actual review section of the article, there is a lot of unsourced information which speaks to both NPOV and OR violations. For example, "Companies can neither remove nor edit reviews, but Trustpilot can and often does -- without always offering a valid explanation." First, there's not a source directly given for this statement in the article. I even checked the 5 or 6 sources that appear at the end of the paragraph and none of them come close to saying "Trustpilot often does". The closest one of the articles came was saying that Trustpilot removes about 3% of reported reviews which certainly would not be correctly represented with the word "often". I'm not going to check every single sentence with the over abundance of sources given, but there are clear NPOV and OR violations.Scoobydunk (talk) 17:46, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Vandalism

Another user has recently started to vandalize this article with illogical and illiterate vandalism. Said user is reverting all of my bona fide edits without first discussing them, and then sanctimoniously and hypocritically falsely accusing me of violating Wiki's rules for reverting his unwarranted edits. This article shall be ruined by said user if it does not stop.--BrightYellowSun (talk) 17:28, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

In that case, please report the editor in question to WP:AIV or WP:ANI. Mdann52 (talk) 17:35, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

You are the editor in question. Today, you reverted ALL of my valid edits without giving a reason.--BrightYellowSun (talk) 17:44, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Maybe because of the fact that WP:NPOV applies to the lede and overloading it with criticism isn't appropriate? I'm beginning to feel like you are here just to make this article more negative. The issues with online reviews are not unique to this site and documented elsewhere, so why do we need yet another page here describing them in detail? I've tried to come up with a comprimise to no avail, so I'm not sure where you want to go now - this version, however, is clearly not appropriate, and goes against the conventions set by other similar articles. Mdann52 (talk) 17:47, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Using one short, declarative sentence about the reliably-sourced and heavily publicized negative covered in the article is overloading the lead? It is you who seems to be biased towards promoting Trustpilot, a violation of WP:NPOV and WP:NOTADVERTISING. What you or I "feel" is impertinent; we do not own Wikipedia. Just the reliably-sourced facts, please. You, like all other contributors, are merely members of the public who post edits. There are no minimal educational nor other requirements. Please feel free to make legitimate edits, but at least discuss them first before reverting every single one of anyone's valid contributions. What happens in other articles is irrelevant. My edits have given both sides of the story and are reliably sourced: RS.--BrightYellowSun (talk) 18:20, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Reporting reviews section

Fellow editors, By my reading, the "Reporting reviews" contains a fair amount of editorializing & judgement on what appear to be fairly standard business practices - Trustpilot disclaims all responsibilty for all content on its website is a standard disclaimer, used on most commercial websites which contain user generated content. I am concerned that we are WP:SYNTHesizing outside the sources in this section. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 19:29, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

In the absence of any responses here, I have removed parts of this section which made a claim of a COI in Wikipedia's voice, and which were unsourced. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 11:37, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Finally, an honest assessment of trustpilot

I had a bad experience with avasflowers and put up a bad review on trustpilot. Within minutes my review was taken down because avasflowers claimed I wasn't a customer. They also took down at least 8 other bad reviews that same day, all stating they aren't customers. However every single good review was flagged as a verified customer. I contacted trustpilot and gave them my order number, name on order as well as screen shots of the FB message conversation between avaflowers customer service. They put my review back up stating it was verified. I updated my post so avaflowers couldn't flag it stating my order number and my name in their system. It didn't matter! Within 2 hours it was once again flagged and my post was taken down. Trustpilot has yet to respond to my messages regarding this. Ndpines (talk) 14:45, 10 May 2016 (UTC) Having had recent experience of TRUSTPILOT, I can confrim everything in the above 2 paras is true. Most of the 5*reviews are fake, and negative reviews are regularly removed. 195.147.209.139 (talk) 08:45, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Cleaned up the tone of critisism section

• Deleted allagents.co.uk paragraph because it was an irrelevant point and it did not add anything to the article besides it was not properly sourced.
• Rewrote first paragraph to read more as criticism instead of false accusations.

Feel free to discuss edits with me if you want Legend-dary (talk) 00:17, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

2020: Article deletion or downsizing

This claim (Despite Trustpilot's claims of "no censoring", low ranking reviews are often removed (described by Trustpilot as the review being "taken offline") by the Trustpilot compliance Team where companies make allegations that the reviews breach Trustpilot's rules - even where this is demonstrably not the case.) is not properly sourced and lacks neutral tone, it should be removed. Also I propose to check the article sources as it seems that many are not suitable per Wikipedia:Reliable sources. JavTehran (talk) 22:16, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

@JavTehran great to have comments 2603:8000:1D00:ED00:8C86:2724:8F38:2BC2 (talk) 06:52, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

My personal experience with Trustpilot is that on occsasion some very problematic companies that I have dealt with can get surprisinlgy good reviews and at the same time, well established igh street companies can get awful reviews. Obviously the business model is problematic, where some companies pay for services from Trustpilot. Saying that the article should fact based is not a solution. There are so many facts and numbers, and the article is so long, that the issues around Trustpilot are drowned in the noise. Someobody looking for a quick view on Trustpilot will not see the issues. So in my view, the article should ne reduced by 9/10 in size or deleted for me. Also the article is not particularly related to Denamrk and I'd be afraid that the prominent Danish banners camouflage the contents. TGcoa (talk) 15:56, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

@TGcoa should we go out and get the teams going 2603:8000:1D00:ED00:8C86:2724:8F38:2BC2 (talk) 06:53, 16 September 2023 (UTC)