Talk:Yahoo! Answers

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Websites / Computing  (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is part of WikiProject Websites, an attempt to create and link together articles about the major websites on the web. To participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Computing (marked as Low-importance).
WikiProject Internet (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Internet on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.



Is it just me, or do the "moderator bias" and "vandalism and trolling" sections seem POV? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:45, 7 October 2007 (UTC)


To anyone who ever tried to find useful information on Yahoo Answers, the site is obviously a total failure. Answers are usually superficial, personalized, and generally worthless. I do not understand why this is not being made clear upfront in the Wikipedia entry. I understand that the encyclopedia tries to be neutral, but there is nothing neutral about Yahoo Answers' failure to be a helpful source of information. Maybe it would be helpful to find some online studies of how worthless it is and cite them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:32, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

However, Yahoo Answers isn't just used for asking questions such as 'When did Winston Churchill die?'. People also use it to ask for advice and opinions. There are not many other sites with which you can do that. --Jonxy 17:39, 15 September 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonxy (talkcontribs)

I thought that this wasn't a forum for general conversation about the topic? Maybe it is you that is the Failure, yes? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:08, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Troll section[edit]

I have deleted this because this kind of content should be here. It was just created for the vanity of a few idiots..and I think the editors here should make sure it stays out..It serves no purpose81.145.242.85 12:39, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

damn a troll section would ahve been fun why did u delete it?


What is "Baconmasters", and who is the leader? A search on both Wikipedia turned up NOTHING useful, except this article. This link should either be removed or redirected, because I don't see anyone creating a "baconmaster" Wikipedia article anytime soon. Or we could just find his Yahoo Answers profile, like some of the other askers. I looked, but couldn't find it.Littlebum2002 15:10, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Local topics[edit]

Does anybody else think that Yahoo Answers should have a seperate category for local questions?

I often have to go to travel or dining to ask questiong from somebody from my own city.

Is there a better way to ask a local question from users in your area?

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nadyes (talkcontribs) 08:42, 20 March 2007 (UTC).

Hi Nadyes, thanks for the product suggestion. I'll take it back to the team. - Micah Alpern, Answers Design Lead. Malpern 18:35, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

The site was built and is moderated from India[edit]

This is one of the reasons that the abuse system has so many problems. A lot is lost in translation between here & india. I can't find the sources that explain that it was built in india, but several developers told me this ... Yahoo is a public company, so i'm sure it's not hidden information. if anyone can find this, i think it is worth adding to the article. thanks.

Malpern 04.22.07: - My name is Micah Alpern [1] and I'm the design lead for Yahoo! Answers. I'm afraid this isn't accurate. The bulk of the Yahoo! Answers team is in the United States. We do have some developers and researchers in Canada and the United Kingdom, but the majority of the design and development team is in Santa Clara, CA. The code this team developers is deployed to 16 countries including India. Here's a link to the announcement of the Y! Answers one year anniversary party [2], which happened in California so that local Yahoo!'s could party with the team. There are local teams working on local versions of Y! Answers in a number of South East Asian countries (including Tawain and Hong Kong), but the vast majority of development occurs in California.
Ok. So, it was developed here... but notice how you completely avoided the issue of where it is MODERATED from? The entire problem with yahoo answers is the endless banning that goes on for no substantiated reason. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Angelatomato (talkcontribs) 08:41, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
It is community moderated..

Google Spider (talk) 17:43, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

No, it is NOT community moderated. It's a 2 step process. 1st, the community can elect to moderate the answer or question. Then, if appealed, it goes up to Yahoo Moderation Staff, which are all certifiably bias IMHO. (talk) 07:16, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

This doesn't make sense[edit]

This Yahoo! service has been found to be very addictive by many Yahoo! users. The main reason for this being the interactive environment and the lack of emotional bond between the Yahoo! Answers Team and the participants.

A change[edit]

I have just changed a few things that aren't correct. --Mr.Nobody 03:30, 7 June 2006 (UTC)Mr. Nobody

Is this fair[edit]

My account on Yahoo! Answers got suspended because it said a question of mine was not a question or answer when it was and even though it was a chatting question it was in the category Entertainment and Music < Polls and Surveys.

Here is the notice.


Your account has been suspended.

If you feel there has been a mistake, please contact us at

Most likely, your account was suspended in violation of Yahoo! Answers community guidelines. Click here to read the full guidelines

In the meantime, feel free to browse Yahoo! Answers

Back to Home My Q&A

--Mr.Nobody 21:59, 16 June 2006 (UTC)Mr. Nobody

It's run by a load of morons but I don't think we should be discussing this here. This is a talk page to talk about the actual article not a forum for Yahoo! Answers. MrBobla 15:30, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. In the case of a wikipedia article on a website such as yahoo answers, the subject of the article has a unique interaction with a lot of general users. As such, people have issues they want to communicate. People have many complaints and issues on many things for which wikipedia articles have been created. Its possible we might later be able to summarize the points of these so-called "forum" discussions into some bullet points for later inclusion into the article. And I keep hearing the same thing droned on an on that wikipedia articles should have information from established sources. Well, gee, if you hear something from ten or twenty people who want to vent their frustrations, thats called a petition. When you have enough people posting to a forum or a petition, whatever the best word for it is, doesnt that make it fact? Marc S. (talk) 15:39, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Yahoo answers calls it a suspension. The word suspension implies eventual reinstatement. Im still waiting to be reinstated. Permannent suspension would be an Expulsion, not a suspension. If you try to appeal, they ignore your appeal message, or an hourly customer service rep sends you a standard form reply. The website says I should tell them the content for which I got suspended. Guess what: when they suspended me, their policy was not to state which item got me suspended. Now Im 99.9% sure my suspension was due to my answer to this: Person asks "what should I get for my 13 yr old niece for a birthday gift? I said: maybe she wants a d---do! a rude response? maybe. Heres the contradiction: yahoo posts articles, and has a comment section after every article. I've seen some really nasty comments. Plenty of people on yahoo should be suspended for the comments they leave in the comment sections after the articles. It doesnt make sense that yahoo answers has a community standards policy, and the comment sections do not have a commnuity standards policy. Marc S. Dania Fl. (talk) 15:27, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Marc, just curious - have you tried taking it up with YA staff on the YA suggestion board? Ottawahitech (talk) 16:08, 13 April 2012 (UTC)


This article is not properly presented. Kothari.sagar 12:48, 6 August 2006 (UTC)


How long before the questions expire? 18:57, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

The questioner can pick best answer after 4 hours or wait up to a week until it is put to vote Oxyman42 22:38, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

date of launch[edit]

When did yahoo launch this service?Oxyman42 22:40, 4 September 2006 (UTC) December 2005 Maniac 01:05, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

December 13th, 2005. Maniac 01:02, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

abuse system[edit]

So I posted the flaws in the abuse system as noted above by someone else under the "Is this fair?" heading, along with examples. The examples were removed by one user as "irrelevant". Then the flaws were removed as being "point of view" because the examples that I listed as proof were previously removed (see below)

Abuse System

Yahoo answers appears to have major problems with their abuse system. Yahoo apparently does not manually review abuse reports, nor does their appeal process utilize live humans. The Yahoo server apparently generates an abuse report based solely on reports from users. Therefore, trolls and pranksters can make false reports which will inevitably get an account suspended.

Here are some examples:

Question: I'm in LOVE with this video clip. My only question is if it's 100% real. What do you guys think? Details of Violation: I'm sure it is. Looks like a mocking bird Reason of Violation:Spam, Phishing, or Fraud

Question: is it wrong to judge a guy for his appearance or is it too shallow? Details of Violation: It really depends on how you choose to live your life. Many people would consider it judgemental and shallow, but you have to decide if you're ok with doing that. Reason of Violation:Spam, Phishing, or Fraud

The fact is, the evidence above, along with plenty more examples from other Yahoo users shows that Yahoo does NOT have a customer service agent review each abuse claim.

On the exposure of questions[edit]

Most questions get answers only in the first two minutes, when they appear on the list of recent questions. This is not always true though. After reaching a particular level a question can be "featured" or shown on the Yahoo! Answers home page.

The above paragraph in the article does not take into account a very useful feature on Yahoo! Answers: sorting. You can use a link on the questions list to sort by number of answers in ascending order. That way you can get at the Q's that have been addressed the least and answer them (although you do run into a few that have no answers because they were deleted). If question-answerers on Yahoo! Answers use this feature regularly (and I suspect some do), it's probably not fair to make this unqualified statement about question exposure. Alksub 02:26, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah it is not always true, but in my experience with Answers, unless a question is in a popular category or about a popular item, it gets the majority, if not all of the answers within the hour. I think that this generalization is correct. Akkid89


Are these actual famous people or just other users pretending to be them? Elle Bee 19:50, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Probably people pretending to be them. Somebody is pretending to be me on Yahoo Answers and it's pissing me off. There is no way for a non-member to report abuse. 21:16, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually some celebrities have official accounts on Answers. You can tell they aren't normal users by the "Official" marker on their profile page. Also they tend to feature on the front page.

Real celebrities include Oprah Winfrey and Hillary Clinton. Antisora 12:12, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah right. Get real. I don't think it's the celebrity themselves, I think it's a PR firm who paid Yahoo Answers to put their famous person on an official profile, so that they can get publicity. Actual celebrities are normal people, and wouldn't want to be recognized. A real celebrity will create a normal anonymous Yahoo ID like everyone else and not tell anybody about their real identity. Elle Bee 14:51, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Elle, I think that goes without saying. For such Official appearances they are obviously for publicity and would no doubt be handled by a representative or PR firm rather than themselves. The recent Lost & Number 23 'Official'-marked members are the clear signs of that. Regardless, I would think that the Official accounts represent the celebrity in question as well as their views and opinions (albeit most likely dumbed down by the rep) and are not simply a member of the public masquerading as them. Antisora 12:25, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
True, there are "official" celebrities on Y! Answers. Some of them might actually be the people themselves, but generally the aim is publicity, or something of the sort. Paul Haymon 05:02, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I changed to a few hours. A few minutes is a gross over generisation. It is quite common to get answers after a few days especially just before a question goes into voting..but there is now way prove it as there are no statisics showing when questions are answered. So I think a few hours sound a better compremise. I few minutes is just not true as many users take longer than that to write an answer!

May 5th 2007: Hi Micah Alpern, design lead for Answers again. All profiles marketed with "Official" under the titles are actual questions from the celebrities or special guests involved. In some cases very busy / important people (like the President of India or Opera) have a staff that may help them prepare a question, but the Question IS actually from the real person and not an impostor.

Given this background I have some suggestions for how to improve the wording of the "Special Guest" section. How about something more like this:

"Several celebrities and notables have appeared on Yahoo! Answers to Ask or Answer questions. These users have an "official" badge below their avatar and on their profile page. The list of Special Guests has included well-recognized celebrities and intellectuals, such as Marilyn vos Savant, the Guinness record holder for highest IQ and the President of India."

I haven't contributed to that many articles in wikipedia so if you have feedback on my proses or process please let me know. My email is alpern at yahoo-inc dot com. I was going to leave this suggestion on the discussion page for a few days to collect comments before incorporating it into the article. Thanks! Micah Alpern

May 12, 2007: We'll I didn't see any comments on my suggestion so I'm going to make the change. If you have concerns or thoughts please add them to this thread. Malpern 22:09, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

A few questions:[edit]

I'm not too familar with Answers but a few things jump out at me after seeing the Q&A pages. Maybe someone who knows these can add them to the article:

  1. Where do all those cute avatars come from?
  2. "In order to ask a question or to answer one, one has to have a Yahoo! account with a positive score balance" -- How do you get a positive score to start with?
  3. The Yahoo Answers user profiles appear separate from the other Yahoo services. Can we get more info about that?

Squidfryerchef 18:55, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

  1. The avatars are from Yahoo avatars, or a Yahoo 360 picture can be used
  2. You are given 100 points on opening a Yahoo answers account
  3. You use your standard yahoo services id to log into answers but can choose any id to be displayed in answers

I have tried to address your queries in the article Oxyman 12:31, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Squidfryerchef 15:35, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Online Celebrities[edit]

There should be an online Celebrities topic. I'm not talking about Oprah or others, i mean popular people on there, like The What Should I Do Retard. (If youv'e heard of him) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 23:37, 28 January 2007 (UTC).

I don't think that people like the one you've mentioned require mention. The majority are just forum trolls - publicity only encourages them to be more annoying.Antisora 12:10, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

You're right (sorry about the unisgned comment), but I think there should be a reference to trolls under critisism in this article. 10:03, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Trolls are all forums I've been to. Therefore, if other forum articles on Wikipedia specifically mention trolls, it may be worth mentioning them in this article. Otherwise, it could almost be assumed that they exist. I'm not sure that singling trolls out is appropriate, though my only rationale for saying that is the fact that it might encourage such behavior. Paul Haymon 04:59, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Abuse system - Less controversial example?[edit]

The thumbs up/down abuse has been noted with mention of the "debate" over evolution/creation. Could this be changed to something that's a little less controversial and a bit more vague? It seems as thought it's been added to accent the point that people don't agree on that topic. Antisora 12:07, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I have no better example at the moment, though. Paul Haymon 04:55, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Homework Cheating[edit]

I have modified various sentences in the Homework Cheating section, mainly rephrasing some generalisations, for instance 'being expelled or suspended' → 'penalized'. Expelling or suspension is not the only form of sanction in schools. I also removed a sentence concerning the a lack of awareness on how much of the cheated work is actually marked. Chris Buttigieg 17:16, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Rating System (Thumbs Up/Thumbs Down)[edit]

I noticed that there is no heading for this topic. It ought to be added, for clarification. Information about it is already in the article. It needs to be combined and put under a clear heading. Paul Haymon 04:57, 11 April 2007 (UTC)


"Yahoo! Answers is essentially a copy-cat version of the successful AnswerBag that launched back in 2003."

I'm removing that. -Uagehry456|TalkJordanhillVote 19:56, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Point and levels system[edit]

Questions are initially open for 3 days, not four, and expiration can be extended to 7 days, not eight.

"three points for selecting a best answer to one's own question or having one's question resolved by a vote."

A questioner does not receive three points for having his/her question resolved on a general vote. The questioner who has not selected a best answer for the question personally, may vote on the responses later, but only receives one point like all the other voters. 3 points are awarded to askers who select best answer simply as an incentive, otherwise no one would select a best answer to their question, allowing it to run to a vote every time. Also, the asker's vote on an unresolved question is worth the same as anybody else's. Some questions have hundreds of people voting on them, the asker's vote in this case is quite insignificant. For this reason, it would make no sense to give the asker 3 points when the question is resolved, since he/she played a small or no part in resolving it.

Level and content of questions[edit]

"Although a question may be answered immediately, often the answer is trite or unrelated or if the question appears to challenge another religion is often answered with multiple insults sometimes in the form of questions themselves."

Questions do not just challenge religions, they challenge all manner of ideologies, including religion, politics, race relations and ethnic issues, gender-specific criticisms, criticisms pointed towards people or institutions having particular characteristics, e.g. old people, conservative or liberal groups, etc. All such questions, and many others, are often responded to with trite or insulting replies. It would make sense to change the above lines from "religion" to "ideologies".

"If a person posts many answers they are eventually labeled "Top Contributor" on their avatar. This gives the deceptive impression that the person labeled as such has given mainly valuable answers and is therefore trustworthy to a high degree. However, just the opposite can be true - the top contributor could merely be a top contributor of unhelpful answers."

This is completely groundless. Although Yahoo! does not disclose its formula(e) to award Top Contributer status "to avoid abuse", top contributers in a particular section usually have a very large percentage of "Best Answers" from askers or voters. Although askers/voters are often driven by positive subjective opinions, or fan-favouritism, towards a particualr answerer, that does not mean all their answers are trite or useless. The majority of top Contributors are experts in their fields or do a lot of research to come up with the answers they provide.

"There are questions where "best answer chosen by voters" was not voted for at all."

This is also untrue, the best answer must have received at least one vote before being so declared. If 2 or more answers receive equal number of votes (zero votes or more), voting on the question goes into Tiebreaker mode, where the first answer to receive one more vote than the others is selected Best Answer.

Lack of biased voting control[edit]

"The current top religious contributor on Yahoo! Answers is not surprisingly a Catholic."

I am not sure how this has been verified, but even if this person has publicly stated that he/she is a Catholic, that does not mean that the religion section is dominated by Catholics or that they impose their agenda upon everybody. Plenty of non-religious people frequent the religion page and vehemently put forward their arguments. The above statement is pointless since the Top Contributer in a section is only human and has all attendant weaknesses, i.e. the Top Contributer in religion would most likely have to espouse a particular religious belief. This cannot be held against them, for, by being Top Contributor, they are after all answering questions to a lot of people's liking, and so one must contend that their participation is useful, even if one does not agree with him/her. Freedom of speech and religion is paramount here.

"There is no doubt that the rewarding of points for any type of answers has lead to community members posting answers not to help answer the question but as a quick way of boosting their Yahoo! Answers score."

Yes, it is true, but what is the point. In Yahoo!'s own words, points cannot be redeemed for prives or gifts or be used to buy anything. Points awarded are unlimited for a particular question; any number of people may answer. By gaining points through frivolous statements, these users are not taking points away from serious users of the site. Avman M 12:48, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Further criticism[edit]

Just seeking clarification on this - it may be an unfortunate one-off or a common problem (but I doubt that, since it doesn't seem to be mentioned here, and I haven't heard of it before) - I have an account I've been using for a few months, but yesterday I logged out (temporarily) and today when I logged back in it recognised my account but treated me as if I hadn't used Answers before, and I discovered my 700 points had been wiped and my questions (and possibly answers - I didn't check) had also been removed. (Just to be clear - I hadn't logged in or out since creating me account.) Anyone have a similar experience or know anything else about this? •97198 talk 09:30, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi Redl, my name is Micah Alpern and I work on the Yahoo! Answers team. We haven't heard of this problem before. If you contact me I can look into the issue. My email address is alpern at yahoo-inc dot com. Thanks, Malpern 06:44, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Criticism Section[edit]

Yahoo! Answers is not bad at all, The only bad effect on it is the people who abuse it. Complex-Algorithm 23:14, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

The point is self-evident: "Users often react to obvious questions by copy-and-pasting text from websites including Wikipedia. This has become so common that the term "Wikipasting" has been coined by users." "the number of points awarded for a correct answer is fixed, unlike on sites such as Experts Exchange." etc. That said, it does seem laden with WP:OR and could use a lot of cleanup. MrZaiustalk 08:03, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, Mr. Zaius, not everyone on Yahoo! Answers "wikipastes". In Yahoo! Answers, we expect personal explanations, not some article written by a computer. Complex-Algorithm 21:58, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I do not understand your response. Please clarify your argument as to why the criticism section is unnecessary - It seems rather nonsensical at present. Do you mean that the article should, for some unknowable reason, focus solely on the functionality of the site and not discuss the social aspects? Again, the only thing I can see that's wrong with the section is that it's ladened with inadequately source original research. MrZaiustalk 14:42, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Where, if anywhere, can you find articles written by computers? Not with computers, by computers. --Zantolak 02:42, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, I also mean that there are more good things to say about it than to criticize about it. All web applications may have a bug, but at least they realize it and correct it. The criticism section may make some people feel better, but personal experiences on the article should not be written. After all, isn't this site a Neutral Point of View? Complex-Algorithm 20:04, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Plenty of reasons to have a criticisms section. Why? For plenty of reasons. They are all the plenty of criticisms that are listed on the page about yahoo answers. Loansince 06:49, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Quite. However, the current section was unsalvageably laden with WP:OR, and absolutely none of it was reliably sourced/verifiable. Let's start from scratch after digging up some real sources. Third party forum posts and OR based on select excerpts from Yahoo! Answers doesn't cut it. MrZaiustalk 18:46, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

The Yahoo!Answers abuse system is abused far too often and Yahoo! does not have any humans that personally review complaints or their severity. Someone reported a post of mine for an alleged violation and I had my account suspended. Upon requesting a review I got the same stock email 5 times in a row and then when I requested more information each time I received another set of canned emails generated by a computer. I am still in the process of working with Yahoo! to review the process and the system to make changes that will in fact better the service for everyone. Perhaps allowing those of us that have consistently worked to keep the service free of trolls and bad posts to be moderators would be a good first step.

I have the emails and can provide evidence of my claims if need be. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:20, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

The emails would constitute original research and, as such, are not acceptable sources. While I concur, I haven't found a good third party publication to support the position.Novangelis (talk) 00:30, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Proliferation of foreign propaganda[edit]

I'm concerned that the latest addition to the criticism section below is not NPOV and is not (based on my experience and data I've seen) common practice on Answers. I would suggest removing this addition, but wanted to get feedback before doing so. Fully discloser: I’m a member of the Yahoo! Answers team. Malpern 15:26, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

"A significant number of questions posted on Yahoo! Answers are, posted on Yahoo! Answers are, in fact, hostile propaganda cleverly masked as empirical questions. Many of the perpetrators behind these influential actions appear to possess a limited command of the English. However, this is a particularly scandalous phenomenon as the large potion of clientele are juveniles." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Malpern (talkcontribs) 15:24, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Not just NPOV but half crazed. Fixed - along with the removal of the rest of the sections in criticism that made no attempt at third party citations/the most blatant examples of WP:OR. MrZaiustalk 15:44, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the edits MrZaius, I tend to agree with them, but it appears other did not as most have been reverted. As someone whose somewhat new to this process what's the best way to resolve this apparent conflict? Malpern 10:22, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

A fair number were just new info added that falls prey to the same concerns. [3] There's the edit before mine to the edit after mine. No defense made for any of the unsourced OR - I say strike it and let them defend it here before reposting. It's going to be nearly impossible to find Wikipedia:Reliable sources for most of the cruft. The section needs to be rewritten from scratch, when sources are found. Anyone know of any off the top of your head? MrZaiustalk 14:17, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, I don't know if it was appropriate to remove the entire criticism section as there was plenty of sourced information as I recall besides some of the vandalism that went on with it. Besides, Ttis person, Malpern, is a member of yahoo answers according to him. I don't think he should be the person we listen to for bias on the matter and many of the criticism about yahoo answers were legit, such as the deletion of accounts without warnings. Masta P 21:47, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

After a 2nd look see of this page, I noticed that sourcing this information isn't even needed. A lot of these criticisms weren't even really about the site it self, but about problems certain users cause on the site, so I erased what wasn't the site's fault. Criticisms about the trolling, how certain users post all their homework answers and whatnot isn't really connected to the site. Those criticism have to do with the users. I would suggest something more along the lines of criticizing the site for even having a homework help section that could even give a kid the idea to cheat on their homework, because its like what kid wouldn't do that.

I've left the section that criticizes the site about stuff they're responsible for, on the page. Particularly the site's complaint system and how they choose to handle problems. The whole criticism about account deactivation and the deactivation of all other Yahoo! services, is definitely the site's fault, not the users who use the site. Masta P 07:51, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Criticism section, part deux[edit]

Please do not remove the OR and primary sources cleanup templates until the Criticism section is clear of Wikipedia:Original research and reliably, verifiably sourced with third party references. There is currently nothing but links to Yahoo! itself and to an offsite blog, neither of which are adequate. Links to and analysis of Answers themselves, in this instance, constitute original research - not necessarily uninteresting, but certainly unencyclopedic. The sections faults are not so egregious as they were when the section was stricken last week, but a considerable amount of work remains to be done. If no reliable sources for these criticisms can be found, it would make sense to strip it down to a discussion of differences between Yahoo! Answers! and! its! competitors! that elucidate some of the same points but without the neutrality issues inherent in covering unsourceable "criticism." MrZaiustalk 02:27, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I think that the criticism section has been removed. Perhaps someone is taking it out until further sources can be cited. Involinstance 22:08, 12 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Involuntary instance (talkcontribs)

I did initially remove it, but a restored, older version is still in place as of this edit. Yahoo!_Answers#Criticisms - Still prone to all the same concerns, though, and likely to be stricken if it's not shored up. MrZaiustalk 22:24, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi Mr. Zaius, I was thinking about working on some proposed revisions to the description of Answers Community moderation system. In September we released a new community moderation system which is designed:

"[to empower] reliable Answers users to quickly remove inappropriate content. Members of the community who reliably identify and report questions and answers will be trusted more than others. If a question or answer is reported by one or more reliable users, it will be removed."

Some other related sources:

"Do you have questions about community moderation?"

"How do I appeal when the community removes my question or answer?"

"Are you wondering how community moderation is doing?"

These descriptions are from the official product help pages and product update blog. Would these be considered acceptable sources?

If not there is also this article by Matt McGee of "Small Business SEM" which quotes similar sources: "Yahoo Answers Expands Community Moderation"

Malpern 05:15, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Only one of those links meets WP:RS, and that only barely. Blogs and forum posts are generally not considered reliable sources, with a handful of exceptions. MrZaiustalk 13:31, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

The latest batch of WP:BIO/personal attack violations have been removed from the criticism section, but there's still nothing in the section that's reliably sourced, and no sign that anyone is making an attempt to clean it up - Deleting again, per WP:PROVEIT. Please do not restore the section without something that can be backed up with verifiable, reliable, secondary and/or tertiary sources. It's been flagged for cleanup for months, so it's possible no sources exist at the present time, but I will try to find something that works. Note that the site linked above is A: Not criticism, but rather some basic coverage of their spam reporting mechanism, and B: just a blog/not reliable either. It may warrant mention in the article, but is definitely not an adequate basis from which to build a criticism section. MrZaiustalk 19:15, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi Mr.Zaius, I wasn't suggesting it would be a basis for the criticism section, but a better source to describe the products community moderation system. (a different section).Malpern (talk) 18:41, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Vandlism by MrZaius, Loeth, and Novangelis[edit]

"Mrzaius (Talk | contribs) (17,438 bytes) (rv POV-pushing, horribly sourced, personal-attack and weasel-word laden additions to the criticism section again" IS NOT EVIDENCE IN AND OF ITSELF. Simply making claims AND NOT CITING YOUR SOURCES is NOT good enough. YOU MUST CITE YOUR SOURCES FOR YOUR CLAIMS.

To simply delete and undo is vandalism. Can I also undo and delete merely by saying "POV-pushing, horribly sourced, personal-attack and weasel-word laden additions to the criticism section again"? NO.

There are many pages such as on digg where criticism is allowed and with hardly any sources to back them up. MrZ. and others you must cite evidence as to why the sources are wrong and not proper. STOP CITING YOUR FEELINGS. THAT IS WHAT IS BIASED. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Unbiaseduser (talkcontribs) 23:40, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Chosen by Grace's Anonymity[edit]

Chosen does not want any direct links to his main accounts to prevent trolls like Novangelis (an atheist member and troll on answers and wikipedia) from trolling him and having his account deleted (which guess what? Would delete REFERENCES). So don't anyone complain about no direct links to his profile. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Unbiaseduser (talkcontribs) 00:24, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Failure to maintain NPOV[edit]

I'm not at all familiar with Yahoo! Answers - never been there - but this article about it gives me the very strong impression as being a gross abuse of Wikipedia.

Large sections of it aren't written from the NPOV; instead, they seem to be an attempt by one or more members of the Yahoo! Answers site to complain about bad treatment that they apparently feel that they have received from other members on that site.

This is not the place to carry on a feud. Articles like this hurt the credibility of Wikipedia. PMaranci (talk) 02:50, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

The non-neutral material has been reverted, and appropriate warnings issued. Thank you, Novangelis (talk) 04:05, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Baseless Reversions Reverted[edit]

How about citing your sources for reverting a page? Since when does "an appearance" count as evidence? Why are so many of you page vandals so deluded that you think the mere appearance of something or that because you said something that that makes it true? The ones who are biased is you. You are not checking the references you are making decisions to wipe out references merely because they don't feel good to you. FEELINGS are not EVIDENCE. MY REFERENCES ARE EVIDENCE. Why is that so hard for you do comprehend?

Supposing this was "original research" what the hell does that matter if the references are correct and both sides are presented? Not that both must be being that I made clear there is bias by the moderators and many atheists there, but so I did show both the claims made by atheists and Christians. Saying secondary resources are not present doesn't mean they are not present. To verify the evidence all you have to do is click and read carefully, is anyone bothering to read the pages being referred to or being like biased MrZauis who makes some angry huffing and puffing, throws in the words "forums" and "unreliable" and not paying attention to what the criticisms specifically say and what is on those pages?

Yes, it's a lot of references, but if you don't want to read them, DON'T EDIT THE PAGE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Unbiaseduser (talkcontribs) 06:20, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Some of your recent additions constitute original research that cites non-independent sources. The Wikipedia policy of no original research suggests that you not add that content without citing reliable, independent secondary sources. --slakrtalk / 06:25, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Your references are to what amounts to a discussion board, these are not considered valid reliable sources. Nor is original research allowed; the addition you made appears to be your interpretations of discussions on a board. If something is not reported in a non-trivial reliable secondary source, it is generally not useful for addition to an encyclopedic article. In addition, this section appears to be nothing more than a collection of accusations, and could be cosnidered against the neutral point of view requirements. Tony Fox (arf!) 06:26, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Moderator Bias[edit]

"Your references are to what amounts to a discussion board, these are not considered valid"

Considered a "discussion board" how? If links go to sites showing that the moderators allow harassment by atheists and arminiasts against calvinists how does that = a discussion board? Are you blind? Can you make any sense? If the links show trolling and ACCUSATIONS (you wanna talk about mere accusations?) against calvinistic christians and the moderators allowing it all the time by the SAME people such as novangelis and gorgeoustxwoman and gazoo, while repeatedly deleting the profiles of those who make calvinistic or fundamentalist statements, or for exposing atheist violence, how is that the equivalent of a discussion board? Again, are you insane? Why are you so thick skulled? How is claiming mere accusations are being made when references are shown showing trolling, showing that the moderators do not delete nearly as quickly or often or at all the profiles of repeat harassers yet always manage to delete the answers, questions, emails and accounts of outspoken calvinistic christians?

Question. Are you a lazy bigot? What is preventing you from clicking those links? Does seeing them hurt your mind? Is it hard for you to read the mere accusations of your own kind? Is it painful for you to see the hypocrisy bleeding out from a large wound on your side of the fence? Why is it so hard for you to acknowledge the truth? Why did it take so many edits and reversions before someone finally allowed criticisms to be shown again? Could there be a bitter troll or trolls vandalizing the page while pretending to better it? I wonder.

If you don't like me or anyone else referencing the old page showing trolls like novangelis being shown favoritism by the moderators then put them in the new article. Stop throwing out the phrase discussion board or claiming vandalism or "not valid". Subjective opinions are not evidence and are not scientific. Learn what evidence means. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kyleain (talkcontribs) 21:27, January 23, 2008

Calm down, you're getting worked up over Yahoo Answers - one of the few places on the internet where you'll find stupidity exceeding that found in youtube comments. Dry your eyes (talk) 08:02, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Haha, and for things that affect the real world: climate change denial sites. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 21:07, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Yahoo Answers Home Page.jpg[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

Image:Yahoo Answers Home Page.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 03:12, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Multiple Accounts on Yahoo Answers[edit]

The site is subject to abuse by users with multiple accounts under different names (Usually transparent because the different users ask identical questions) Typical abuse: A question like "DO YOU KNOW THAT FREEMASONS ARE SATANISTS" may be asked by ABC. If all of the answers do not agree with the questioner's viewpoint (like "No, they are good people") ABC will log on as XYZ and say "YES- They are out to destroy GOD", and then ABC will choose this as Best Answer. Saxophobia (talk) 23:52, 17 April 2008 (UTC) Lol multiple accounts are what make yahoo answers so much fun-Proud yahoo answers troll. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chop Top (talkcontribs) 08:22, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Account deletion reference[edit]

I've added a reference about accounts getting deleted. The source is weak. If it is considered too weak, I have no qualms about its deletion. Novangelis (talk) 15:27, 19 June 2008 (UTC)


For each of the Officials on the Wikipedia page for Yahoo! Answers, there is a link to their profile on Yahoo! Answers. Dylan and Cole Sprouse do not have a profile link beside their name. Could somebody please add it? Thank You

I couldn't find Dylan and Cole Sprouse's profile on Y!A. If Google doesn't show it, probably it doesn't exist. -Abhishek (talk) 18:48, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
I go on Y!A, and one person mentioned that Dylan does have an account with the green OFFICIAL sign under his name. But, if they don't have one, shouldn't we delete their names on this Wikipedia page for Yahoo! Answers?

I guess. -Abhishek (talk) 11:34, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm wondering why it was even written there in the first place. There must be a reason. But, check this out. Scroll down a little bit. This person is saying that Dylan Sprouse does have an official one.;_ylt=AkLlnBsJMv6mRl.PxGvFFtbsy6IX;_ylv=3?qid=20080728065048AAOSd7w

Stephen Dion, Liberal Leader of Canada is on Y!A, as well. Could somebody find his profile??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:10, 16 October 2008 (UTC)


(first of all, I'm sorry if I'm doing this wrong, I've never used the talk page.)

Why was the subtitle about malware under criticism removed? I think it was pretty important. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:01, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

That edit was specific to a particular incident(s) and did not cite any sources. I think that's the reason for its removal. Maybe we can add a line or two to the "community moderation" subtitle as to how community moderation fails in controlling spam, in general, with a reference URL to a relevant thread on the YA feedback forum; without making wikipedia look like a NEWS website. :) -Abhishek (talk) 08:43, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Okay, I wrote the article AND cited it. I have a picture, but I don't know how to add it. If you can somehow get the person's permission.. it's in the citation link in the Malware subtitle. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:27, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

That section is written like a "breaking news" entry. Remember that Wikipedia is not a news website. Please re-edit and make it encyclopedic, if possible. - (talk) 14:50, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Yesterday, I added a screenshot of the malware entry being discussed. The image was removed as original research. I understand that I was the one who took the screenshot of a malware answer to a question using my own Yahoo profile, but it demonstrates/proves that the problem exists as previously explained in another removed edit by another person. The lack of reference material about it doesn't negate the fact that it's there. This link on Yahoo Answers ( is to a forum question with responses from Yahoo Answers employees about combatting the malware, and other suggestion.--WPaulB (talk) 13:38, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Although forums are not ideal sources, I am adding your link as a reference to the section. The details of one type of malware do not belong in a discussion of the site. As mentioned above, every recent little detail is not encyclopedic.Novangelis (talk) 13:54, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
I fully understand that not every recent little detail is encyclopaedic. While I know it's still personal experience, in just the last week, I've reported more than 20 of the exact same text malware posts and I only answer in the Mathematics section an hour or so per day. If I find something more substantive and official outside Yahoo Answers, I'll suggest it.--WPaulB (talk) 19:04, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

The page is broken[edit]

The page appears to be unreadable and broken, although it may be my browser but other articles work just fine for me. (talk) 02:29, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Appears broken to me in Firefox 3, IE6 and Google Chrome. Just an image and a broken table. Daffyflyer (talk) 02:48, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

A small correction. What do you think?[edit]

At the end of the introduction, it says that the "Top Contributor" badge appears whenever the owner of it asks, answers, and comments. However, this is partially incorrect, as when a TC holder makes a comment after a question is resolved, the badge doesn't seem to be visible. Therefore, I think it (the last sentance) should be reworded properly. I wanted to hear your thoughts on this!-- (talk) 01:15, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes you are right, badge doesn't seem appear alongside comments. It should be something like "...the badge appears below the user's avatar on his profile, questions and answers.." (or some other rewording!). -Unpopular Opinion (talk · contribs) 05:20, 15 November 2008 (UTC)


I feel the section needs to mention that many of low quality answers are due to the 2 points rewarded for any answer regardless of the answers quality.

However this seems too POV without a citation. Any ideas? The LMOE (talk) 19:48, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Found this, might be useful in the criticism section. Maybe. --Unpopular Opinion (talk) 20:16, 28 December 2008 (UTC)


Should also highlight about ignorant questions posted about negative stereotypes against minorities, I question this about it on Yahoo Answers.. guess what it got reported and deleted! —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:43, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Guest list[edit]

Is it time to get rid of the list of guests and replace it with a general discussion?

  • The list is too long to be informative.
  • It is subject to vandalism and insertions of random entries.
  • It could be replaced with prose form and representative examples.
  • In its present form, it seems more like advertising.

Would we include a list of every guest who has ever been on The Tonight Show in the article? No. It might merit a list of it's own, but every "official" guest on Yahoo! Answers doesn't seem to meet notability. Novangelis (talk) 17:48, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I was just directed to this page by people arguing that we list every celebrity that uses Twitter over at Talk:Twitter, and I have to agree 100% with you. As I stated over there, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information and just listing every famous individual to ever use Yahoo! Answers is listcruft. KhalfaniKhaldun 08:12, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
I've pared the list to 16. I haven't put the citations inline, as I would like anyone's thoughts on the list or the prose before I flood the reflist with a bunch of highly similar links. Novangelis (talk) 04:54, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Criticism of Report service.[edit]

If one person clicks "Report" than bam! your banned from Answers. Can someone post this and get a citition. Thanks. The drunken guy (talk) 18:14, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

This has not been my experience, at least not in the past. I have been reported to YA on one of my answers, however, when I appealed the violation by responding to the email I received from YA, the violation was reverted. I also have not seen any complaints such as yours on the Answers category in YA. Can you be more specific about your own experience? Ottawahitech (talk) 20:48, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I appealed and the same didn't happen. I think your the rare case that is (no offence). BTW: I've just got a new account a few weeks ago. The drunken guy (talk) 14:40, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Individual experiences vary, but what is needed is a reliable source discussing it. I just did another search to no avail. There is a paucity of mainstream news regarding internet sites.Novangelis (talk) 17:56, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Delete the section Answers On The Street[edit]

I don't think this deserves a heading since it's no longer an active promotion and there have been more recent promotions. Furthermore it seems more like advertisement. I want to see it deleted or integrated into a different heading.--Yammie2009 (talk) 06:16, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree, I don't think it's that important either, I can go ahead and delete it if everyone's OK with it. ChocolateLover193 (talk) 13:52, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done All the coverage I could find was part of a sentence.Novangelis (talk) 15:32, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Who provides content on YA?[edit]

The Yahoo Wiki article says that: “Yahoo! partners with hundreds of premier content providers in products such as …Yahoo! Answers… to provide media contents and news. “ Is this really true when it comes to YA? – I thought all the YA content was provided by YA users? Ottawahitech (talk) 20:43, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

The article may consider "Knowledge Partners" as content providers. See About Knowledge Partners--Yammie2009 (talk) 17:54, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
Thank you Yammie. This tidbit is informative - maybe someone can incorporate it into the aticle Ottawahitech (talk) 01:36, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

External links[edit]

What is going on with the articles external links? Ottawahitech (talk) 03:15, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I deleted several that were already in the body of the article and a couple that were outdated or irrelevant. The main page, for example, is part of the infobox. Other pages within the site are in the article text. I also unlinked words like "account" and "real world" that distracted from readability. Feel free to correct any errors. P.S. A few days ago there were some spam links that were cleaned up by somebody. --Yammie2009 (talk) 03:48, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
In order for Wikipedia articles to be useful, some conventions must be followed. This is what is expected in Wikipedia external links: "Wikipedia articles about any organization, person, website, or other entity should link to the subject's official site, if any." Ottawahitech (talk) 15:11, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the information on External Links. I defer to your experience and follow your lead (i.e. my user page). That article does suggest the official website be first on the list even though it's in the infobox. It also suggests that further links at the website be avoided. --Yammie2009 (talk) 17:30, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks Yammie for fixing the External Links. I am not usually one to follow conventions blindly, but this one made sense to me :-) BTW I am not at all experienced at Wikipedia, nor am I at YA, both of which are projects I would like support in any way I can. I just try to observe and learn, so that I can help - the person who really deserves a thanks here is Novangelis who seems to consistently look out for the YA article. Ottawahitech (talk) 14:19, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Haiti earthquake[edit]

Too bad YA cannot easily be utilized to help those seeking more information on this recent tragedy. Looks like Wikipedia is pretty nimble: there is already a new page: 2010 Haiti earthquake Ottawahitech (talk) 18:27, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

This YAnswers site has more in common with 4chan than a purported reference source, you know. Not that wikipedia is that great either, there's too much vandalism and i often have to dig the contribution history to find a good version of a page. (talk) 17:25, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Would this site's methodology count as "crowdsourcing"?[edit]

Tisane talk/stalk 19:44, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

In general, yes. [4] Before calling it such in the article, you should find a more current source, and try to find sources that distinguish model from practice. The criticisms section points out the issue of use as a social networking site.Novangelis (talk) 21:12, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

i want adresses of people living in bracia italy —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:43, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Yahoo! Groups removes YA module[edit]

I see no mention of this in the article. Just wondering if YG and YA are no longer supporting each other? Ottawahitech (talk) 01:33, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Would you like to get paid for your opinions about Yahoo! Answers?[edit];_ylt=AsnHklEeMgoswhbYErhdeIXsy6IX;_ylv=3?qid=20100922091133AANHRded Should this be included in the article? Ottawahitech (talk) 20:31, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Major layoffs at Yahoo?[edit]

Yahoo said to be rolling out layoffs

Multiple media outlets reported earlier this month that Yahoo was on the verge of major layoffs, perhaps as high as 20 percent (but more likely 10 percent) of the struggling technology company. On Tuesday, TechCrunch reported that tipsters were contacting them to say the layoffs had begun. The company's Yahoo Groups and Flickr divisions were named specifically.

Read more:

Countless glitches on Yahoo Answers[edit]

Anyone want to add a section about the countless glitches and bugs affecting Yahoo Answers for the past year and a half or so that the site seems to neglect and do nothing about? I have sent them personal e-mail about the glitches and bugs on their site on and off for the past year and yet there many of the problems are still existent. Among the many glitches the site has experienced over the year and still are, include: 1.) questions not showing up in the categories list once posted even despite not being reported and being existent in one's account 2.) only half of the material that one has written showing up once users have pressed submit, and many many more where that came from. Just to make sure it wasn't just me experiencing this glitches, I see various questions in which other users have asked about the same glitches:

In addition, many people have claimed Yahoo Answers just dismisses legitimate Violation Notice appeals without bothering to look them over. Having written legitimate appeals myself for material that was wrongly removed and them dismissing it without providing a logical reasons as to why, sometimes no reasons at all, I can vouch for everyone who believes they don't bother to really look over their appeals. (talk) 18:19, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

If anyone can provide a reputable source listing glitches, I am sure someone would add the info to the article. Ottawahitech (talk) 17:38, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Lost in Translation[edit]

Much of this page seems to be either written by a fifth grade student or otherwise botched by some sort of Internet translation service (Google Translate). What went wrong here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:12, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

You mean poor grammar and wording? (talk) 09:42, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Yahoo! Answers retired Android App[edit]

On January 27, 2012, Yahoo! Answers stopped development of the Android App used to access the site on Android smartphone. Which section should I ~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:11, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

What happened between March 15 - March 27?[edit]

I noticed that the stats for Yahoo! Answers at:!_Answers shot up to over 2,000 daily views during the above period. Just wondering if anyone knows what caused the spike of interest? Ottawahitech (talk) 00:51, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

10 Yahoo services that should be killed by Scott Thompson’s restructuring plan[edit]

"...Yahoo Answers is apparently where the Internet goes to die. The service started out innocently enough as a place where people could ask questions and get answers from other Yahoo users. It’s become so pervasive that anytime you Google search a question, a Yahoo Answers hit comes up. It be a great little service if it wasn’t fill with so much spam, trolls, and people like this. Seriously Yahoo, shut down the madness..."

(I don't know if the source is considered "reliable" at Wikipedia - so leave it up to other editors to see if this info needs to be added to the article) Ottawahitech (talk) 18:11, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

From what I understand, VentureBeat does have some degree of editorial oversight, but I'm not sure how much. I suspect the relevant policy is WP:RSOPINION and, as such, any text would have to be expressed as an opinion. My gut says that this fails more as a question of notability/relevance. ("A couple of people at a not-so-well-known blog think it should go away.") I'm wary of using it. I'd suggest running it by WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard with the context in which it would be used prior to attempting to integrate it into the article.Novangelis (talk) 19:05, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for replying, Novangelis. I wonder if anyone else is interested in running this by WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard? Ottawahitech (talk) 15:53, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
If you edit and I'm concerned you overreached what the source supports, I'll ask if you don't (advisory, not "threat"). I try to be a hardliner on WP:V without being a hardass. This is the gray zone. I, too, welcome further input and if it does not appear on this page, RS/N is the appropriate spot for third-party input. If you have an edit in mind and no one else comments within a reasonable (your call) time, use the WP:BRD cycle. I'll revert if I'm concerned you went too far and we'll hash out the issues.Novangelis (talk) 18:29, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
Two prior discussions provide favorable, but not definitive guidance: 1& 2.Novangelis (talk) 19:14, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Oh yes, Yahoo Answers does not like criticism![edit]

Yahoo has just deleted my question and fined me 10 points (on no my bad!) for having the temerity of wanting to know what satisfaction people get from their answers. I have no idea what rule I have broken, but basically in the times I have posted questions, I have never ever had a more than 20% of satisfactory answers. Most users seem to think their opinions, ignorance and non-factual content is sufficient for a "best answer".

This site should be renamed "Ask the bullshitter at the bar". But apparently questioning that reality must hurt Yahoo's promoted image that this site is a vestige for academics, experts and informed individuals. Embarrassing really. You can ask any question which does not question the credibility of this site! (talk) 08:58, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

The website has community reporting. So people report your answer, there are no "moderators" who work for Yahoo who go around deleting questions — Preceding unsigned comment added by B23Rich (talkcontribs) 06:00, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Suppression of Free Speech and possible first amendment violation by yahoo answers[edit]

The rule and guidelines of yahoo answers is so extremely ridiculous that almost anything you state will likely end up as a violation and you would be suspended eventually. Now legally you aren't breaking any rule. You may not be using any profanities and neither would you be offending anyone but you will still end up as having violated yahoo answers guideline and at some point find yourself pushed to suspension. For example I once asked a harmless question like "do you like sunshine?" and it was deleted and a violation notice email was sent to me. Per yahoo guidelines this is known as "chatting" and its against the rules. The point of ridiculousness is that yahoo answers isn't meant for academic research or study as this article stated already. And just asking a question, any question comes as chat too. Not only that for mere disagreement in political views your answer will be deleted as violation. The line of sanity has clearly been crossed and yahoo answers is no longer taken as anything reputable by anyone. Technically, a violation generally means threatening someone, using hate or abusive speech. But nowadays even the most basic of the most basic question or answer will come as violation because its "chat". — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:54, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

yahoo management failure to curb sock account users[edit]

The politics section of yahoo answers is flooded with sock account users. Yahoo refuses to investigate sock accounts. This has severely damaged the quality of answers in politics section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:58, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

My IiPod won't charge[edit]

Okay so I have the 4th generation iPod and it stopped charging. I dropped it a few months ago over the summer but it worked and charged fine after that. I usually use my docking station to charge my iPod. So the other day I went to download some music from my laptop onto my iPod and my PC wasn't recognizing my iPod, then I tried to charge it and it wouldn't work. I've tried plugging three different Apple chargers into my laptop and into the wall outlet. And I also tried two different docking stations and none of the, worked. Once it died I put it on the dock and it charged just enough to turn back on. Then it stays on for five minutes then dies again. What do I do? Please Help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:44, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

How many registered users[edit]

In order to list Yahoo! Answers in List of virtual communities with more than 100 million active users we need to know how many registered users it has. Anyone? XOttawahitech (talk) 14:53, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

New format of Y!A[edit]

"Once the "best answer" is chosen, there's no way to add more answers nor to improve or challenge the best answer chosen by the question asker; there is a display of thumbs down or thumbs up for each answer, but viewers cannot vote. Also, while "best answers" can be briefly commented upon, the comment is not visible by default and is hence hardly read. (Even the user who posts the question isn't notified, before or after the best answer is picked, about a comment on the question or on the best answer). If the best answer chosen is wrong or contains problematic information, the only chance to give a better (or correct) answer will be the next time the same question is asked, but the older answer will still likely get higher priority in search engines. Any new answer will most probably not be seen by any original questioner"

This paragraph is not accurate of how the website is anymore. I think it would be fine to keep around as a previous format it was in... but in the new format, you can comment on each answer individually, you can now answer questions that have already had a best answer picked, so now, you can challenge other answers that have been made, say, 3 years ago. — Preceding unsigned comment added by B23Rich (talkcontribs) 05:14, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

So I worked on this paragraph below

Mid-way through September 2013, the Yahoo Answers layout was drastically changed, and users gradually got to experience this new layout throughout the upcoming months,[1] meaning, not every user had this layout instantly, several users first saw it in October or even later months. The new layout was supposed to be "better, faster and simpler", as said on the official Yahoo Answers Tumblr, however it has gotten a lot of criticism from it's users. According to the Quantcast traffic report, the number of unique visitors per month in November (9,178,411) drastically decreased compared to October (16,261,827), displaying a 43.6% drop of visitors in one month. The number of unique visitors in December (7,612,440) also displayed a fairly large decrease from November. The average number of unique visitors per month between December 2013 and April 2014 was 7,574,093, displaying a 53.4% decrease of visitors compared to October.[2] Beyond a different aesthetic layout to the website, it brought and took away certain features, one feature it eventually took away was the ability to vote for best answers (community voting).[3] With the new format, only the question-asker can pick best answers. In the new format, questions are never "closed", which means someone can go and answer a question that was asked 4 years ago, this was done so that new answers could add, or correct older answers. Another feature they implemented to help this cause is commenting on answers, you can now comment on individual answers. Commenting was mainly added so "you can thank users for particularly helpful answers, or challenge answers that you disagree with".

Back Pay[edit]

If a Marine is lost at sea for two years, but later found alive on an Island. Would he be entitled back pay for the two years, or when he was listed as K.I.A.?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CECE:2130:153F:F27:3A38:8D8E (talk) 17:38, 19 January 2015 (UTC) 


Currently, the spot exchange rate is sh.132/£ and the three–month forward rate is sh.125/£. The three month interest rate is 4.5% per quarter in Kenya and 2% per quarter in the UK. With Kes.125 million or GBP1 million, Illustrate how you would carry out covered interest arbitrage? Show all the steps and determine the arbitrage profit and the arbitrage return. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:05, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Yahoo! Answers. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

YesY Archived sources have been checked N but failed to be useful/working

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:28, 14 January 2016 (UTC)


My girlfriend keeps going for meals with her ex but tells me is it normal Dtoomey86 (talk) 10:58, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Wrong launch date[edit]

After doing a little research by doing through the articles edit history, I think that the supposed launch date, which is currently June 28, 2005, is false. As you can see with my sources, the date June 28, 2005 was just put in by random with no reference to support it. And going even further back, the supposed launch date was July 5, 2005, which was also wrong and un-referenced as well. And it's been wrong for over 4 years I'm going to change the launch date to the referenced December 8, 2005.

Source(s):!_Answers&oldid=459897837 - first edit of the launch date being June 28, 2005 without a source!_Answers&oldid=324355839 - first edit of the launch date being July 5, 2005 also with no source either!_Answers&oldid=93951118 - the first use of December 2005

— Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:53, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

I think that I have found some reliable sources that supports Yahoo! Answers alpha release being June 28, 2005 and July 6, 2005 (one day off from July 5) respectively. I have found what are supposely the oldest Yahoo! Answers accounts, which were programmers when Yahoo! Answers was still in the alpha stage.

Source(s): - Ofer's Y!A's account, which was created on June 28, 2005 - Tim's Y!A's account, which was created on July 6, 2005 (talk) 16:32, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

One day difference can be explained by timezone, of course. We should use UTC (but I can't get a proper timestamp from the YA interface right now). Nemo 20:00, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
I doubt it's because of anything with timezones, as Tim's account was created on July 6, 2005 and my second source (first edit of the launch date being July 5, 2005 also with no source either) was edited to be launched on July 5, 2005, which is the editor's fault for putting it a day off. (talk) 22:02, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Yahoo! Answers. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

YesY Archived sources have been checked to be working

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:49, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

  1. ^ Introducing the new Yahoo Answers! Retrieved June-05-2014
  2. ^ Quantcast for Yahoo Answers Retrieved June-05-2014
  3. ^ Enhancements to Commenting and Rating Retrieved June-05-2014