# Talk:Yelp


### GA review
So I have to confess I didn't notice the GA review below until just now. Where does that stand at the moment? It looks pretty well completed. I don't see any outstanding issues. Coretheapple (talk) 17:23, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

It looks like the reviewer hasn't been on (see here). Hopefully they'll circle back whenever they have time. CorporateM (Talk) 17:36, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
Sometimes they stay in limbo for a long time. Months and months. Coretheapple (talk) 21:13, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
@user:Coretheapple FYI CorporateM (Talk) 15:30, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Yelp/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.


### comments from Protonk
At the request of the nominator I've taken over this review. My comments are below. I think that the bulk of this article is good to go. It's largely well sourced and clear and some good work has been done to clear up the first reviewers comments. I have two outstanding problems; one large and one small. My small problem is with the lede. I feel that it can be tightened up a bit and could better reflect the content of the article. My major problem is with the structure and tone of the Relationships with businesses section. The section has a very tough job. It has to accurately and fairly reflect the available sourcing on Yelp's admittedly patchy relationship with their main customer base. This is complicated by our merging of Yelp the business entity with Yelp the body of crowdsourced reviews, so we have sections which go from discussing business relationships to reviewers to the site and back again. There are also some problematic passages where we appear to be off-loading responsibilities for certain claims (often those critical of Yelp) where it isn't needed and or alternating between good press and bad where it would make more sense to the reader to organize things logically. I don't mean to pose the above as withering criticism of the article or the motivations of editors. On the contrary, it is very difficult to produce a well organized, clear and neutral summary of a subject like this so we should expect these problems at the GA level.
I think the best way forward is to deal with the smaller problems first and try to collect the larger problems and write proposed drafts for the individual sections which tackle multiple issues at once, because working on many of the tone issues piecemeal may introduce clarity problems and vice versa. 

Thanks! I'll start working down the list, leaving anything controversial to Request Edits. CorporateM (Talk) 13:53, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
@user:Protonk I've done the ones that are fairly non-controversial. I'd like to wait a week or so to see if user:Coretheapple has time to take a look at some of the more controversial or substantial items. If not, I'll do them through Request Edits. CorporateM (Talk) 15:40, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
Sorry I've been super busy! Sometimes I get contacted by folks that are not notable or have negative reputations in the source material and it's very time-consuming to talk them off the cliff. I'll take a crack at the last remaining item now and see if I can avoid making a jerk out of myself. user:Coretheapple did say they were busy IRL. CorporateM (Talk) 22:13, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
@CorporateM: Take your time. :) I'm happy to keep this review on hold as long as you need to work on it to your satisfaction. Protonk (talk) 22:19, 6 October 2014 (UTC)


#### style/layout
#### content
The structure of the Relationship with businesses section makes me think that the first few paragraphs will roughly summarize the interactions Yelp has had with businesses with subsidiary sections on astroturfing, "interactions", manipulation, but I'm not seeing that here. I don't think it needs to be that way for a GA, but I'm not sure this section is as clear as it could be.
I'll leave this to user:Coretheapple if he/she has time. I find myself having increasingly strong opinions on the subjects. If I had my way, I think I would create a separate article similar to Reliability of Wikipedia, like Integrity of Yelp Reviews and use summary style. This section spans more than one-third of the entire article, and should be expanded even more. A lot of reliable sources about individual incidences were removed about a year ago because they are undue weight for this page, but would be perfect for an "Incidences" section on a separate article like the one found on Reliability of Wikipedia.  CorporateM (Talk) 13:17, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
We may have taxed enough of their time (thanks for all their help!). I think we can find a path which satisfies your opinions but doesn't force us (yet) to create a new article. Converting the first paragraph to a rough summary of the interactions will help us make the following subsections shorter and more direct. When the time comes to create an "Integrity of Yelp reviews" (or whatever) article, the subsections can be removed and the summary left there with a hatnote to the new article. No fuss no muss. I know this is a tough situation for you but I think it should be resolved because it'll make the article more clear and allow for easier piecemeal editing of the individual sections. If you want to wait for Coretheapple we can; I'm happy to keep the review on hold as long as you need to. But I think this can be handled via a requested edit (or a series of them).
For specific recommendations on what I'd like to see in that paragraph I'd say:
Take out the court case
Take out (for now) the distribution of reviews (it's better suited in the "interactions" section as context for the owners reacting to "bad" reviews)
Clarify why we're including the information on the marginal value of a Yelp star. It's useful information but it's sort of dead weight in the paragraph unless we show why the reader should care.
Move up some material from the first paragraph in the astroturfing section to the section summary
If you're looking to shorten the section as a whole I'd question the need to have the bit about yelp and "a lawyer" getting into a tiff. Protonk (talk) 19:30, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
I don't think I would agree with most of those specifically as the class action lawsuit with the vet (if that's the one you are referring to) is unquestionably notable. It could be moved up into the currently sterile corporate history section, where lawsuits typically reside, so this section could focus on the broader issues. I think either location would be equally valid. The analysis of stars and their impact is also unquestionably notable, but the dispute with the lawyer may not be. I'll have to double check.
I support sub-articles more than is currently community consensus (though I think user:Wikidemon also mentioned a similar sub-article previously). For logistical reasons, it is most practical for a disinterested editor to give it a read through and do some re-structuring, trimming, and re-organizing (it is very hard for an editor to actually look at a proposed re-structure and know exactly what has changed), but I'll proceed with it that way if we don't hear back from Core. CorporateM (Talk) 20:13, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
It's the one supported by this source (text is "In 2013 Yelp and a law firm were involved in a dispute over their agreement for advertising services." etc.). For the GA review it's fine, just didn't think it was that necessary in a section if you're strapped for space as it were. Protonk (talk) 20:18, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
Also I see you've had some editors complain about using drafts for requested edits. I have no problem with that form if that's how you're comfortable proposing a reorganization like this. I kinda wish wikipedia allowed forks (technically) so we could diff unrelated pages, not just changes but if you want to paste the relationship section into a draft and reorganize it there I can review that pretty easily. Protonk (talk) 20:21, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
Doing more research, I don't think the dispute with the lawyer could be removed either, considering the sources available[2][3][4][5][6][7] On the contrary, just this one lawsuit (tiny in the scope of things) could warrant an entire section on a sub-page. Being that we are not a paper encyclopedia, we are never really pressed for space, just for due weight.
I usually tell clients that if they are not uncomfortable, they are not doing it properly. It comes with the territory. I find myself having reasonable and balanced viewpoints about the fairness of reviews, the filter, etc. but I don't think the accusations of actual manipulation are credible; rather like a pseudoscience it has been established by experts, academics, courts and whatnot to be false, but it is still a popularly believed point-of-view by businesses frustrated by their reviews and consumers that are easily influenced by the sensational press. That opinion, however reasonable it may or may not be, will get me into COI trouble when it reflects in the content I write (as it probably already does).
Anyways, lets wait a bit longer to see if Core wants to take a stab and if not I'll take a shot with a Request Edit type thing. CorporateM (Talk) 20:45, 2 October 2014 (UTC)


### Take at re-structuring controversy
How's this? CorporateM (Talk) 22:46, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Just made a few more tweaks. I should note, in order to avoid the appearance of trying to sneak something by, that this is along the lines of the structure I proposed one year ago, which did not obtain consensus. Not trying to wear down editors through attrition to get my way - it's just... that's how I'd do it...  CorporateM (Talk) 22:58, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
I'll take a close look at it within the next 2 days. Protonk (talk) 23:01, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
Some thoughts: I like breaking out the "impact of reviews". I like the astroturfing section, with one suggestion that we take out the "according to the LA Times" in the first sentence. I'll have to take a closer look at alleged manipulation by yelp. I'll try and have more complete comments by thursday. Protonk (talk) 02:43, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Griggs, Brandon (August 20, 2015). "Rude TSA agent? Review them on Yelp". CNN. Retrieved August 20, 2015.
Berman, Russell (August 19, 2015). "Uncle Sam Wants You—to Write Reviews on Yelp". The Atlantic. Retrieved August 20, 2015.
"How Yelp plans to clean up one of the restaurant industry's most dangerous flaws". Washington Post. October 27, 2015. Retrieved October 27, 2015.
Ostrov, Barbara Feder (October 26, 2015). "Can Yelp help track food poisoning outbreaks?". CNN. Retrieved October 27, 2015.
Ostrov, Barbara Feder (October 23, 2015). "Yelp Reviews Can Take Food Poisoning Alerts Viral". NPR.org. Retrieved October 27, 2015.
Stempel, Jonathan (November 27, 2015). "Yelp prevails in lawsuit over authenticity of its reviews". Reuters India. Retrieved December 15, 2015.

Hi. My name is Amber and I work for Yelp. In accordance with WP:COI, I would like to request an impartial editor consider the following changes. Please let me know if I can do anything to help and thanks for chipping in.

1. Lead

Explanation: Updating numbers from 2021 10-k to numbers from 2023 10-k
 Done Rusalkii (talk) 02:42, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
2. Features Section

Explanation: I'm not sure what, if anything, can be done here. The features I'm proposing be trimmed were discontinued, but I don't have a citation saying as much. The press doesn't really cover the sunsetting of old features.
Yeah, that's a hard one. Any chance you could get your boss to do a press release about it? But more seriously, are there any announcements, blog posts, etc? This seems like a relatively non-controversial WP:ABOUTSELF, though I appreciate you using external sources where possible. Rusalkii (talk) 02:42, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
3. Features Section

Explanation: Adding new features/citations
 Done Rusalkii (talk)
Alalbrech (talk) 18:09, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Closing this for now. You can reopen it or start a new request if you find sources for #2. Rusalkii (talk) 18:51, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi. My name is Amber and I work for Yelp. In compliance with WP:COI, I'd like to request four updates to the page as indicated below. I also updated the financials in the infobox as a non-controversial COI edit, but please revert me if that's a problem.

1. Add Recent history sub-section

Explanation: The "Public entity (2012–present)" sub-section is getting very long and covers over a decade of history (a long time for an internet company). Yelp's been public for quite a while. I suggest it's time to start a new sub-section in the History section for recent events that can be expanded as history continues to unfold and get it started with some recent history.

2. Add Recent Features

Explanation: Adding new feature releases/updates.

3. Star requirement
The following text: "Yelp will only allow businesses with at least a three-star rating to sign up for advertising.<ref name="SFGate1"/>" is cited to an article from 2006 almost 20 years ago. Yelp abandoned this policy many years ago, but I don't anticipate the media ever reporting on a negative. Meaning, there is unlikely to ever be a press article expressly stating that Yelp doesn't do that anymore. Is there anything that can be done to correct this? Are we stuck with it forever due to this article from 2006?

4. Updating primary sources: There are a few data points on things like traffic numbers that could be updated:

Explanation: The 72% mobile traffic data-point is mentioned in the Lead and in the Features section. However, both are cited to a 2016 Yelp fact sheet (almost 10 years old) and are redundant with the updated traffic stats (36 million desktop + 60 million mobile) elsewhere on the page (comes out to 62%). I don't think it's necessary to explain the same thing a different way using a 9 year-old primary source.
Pinging @Rusalkii: who chipped in with some proposed updates last year.
Alalbrech (talk) 21:18, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

 Partly done: I have concerns about some of the edits:
The requested edit in Add Recent History subsection seems leading. There have been numerous lawsuits against Yelp including by Texas Attorney General (Ken Paxton) and Gruber v. Yelp Inc. (Class action) to name a few. Why shouldn't that information be included as well?
Propose rewriting
"Users can use reactions including “Helpful,” “Thanks,” “Oh No” and “Love This” to show their feedback on review content."
to "As of [year], Yelp introduced reaction buttons—such as “Helpful,” “Thanks,” and “Love This”—to let users express responses to reviews without leaving comments."
No opposition to changes 3 and 4 which I will complete now Dahawk04 (talk) 21:55, 1 July 2025 (UTC)


### Corrections
Thanks @Dahawk04:! I do have a few corrections/tweaks I'd like to request:
In the Lead there is a duplicate "desktop" typo: "In 2024, the company had over 76 million desktop unique visitors on desktop and mobile."
Your proposed rewrite of #2 looks ok to me.
"72% of Yelp searches are done from a mobile device" is cited to Yelp's Trust and Safety Report, which does not say what it is cited for. Yelp's 10-k does have a breakdown of unique visitors (28.6 million app unique devices, 40.3 million desktop unique devices, and 64 million mobile web unique devices)
The last paragraph just before the "Features for businesses" section says "It also introduced an API that allows developers to search Yelp data from other applications, and made other improvements." However, the cited source says the API was pre-existing (not introduced) and natural language search was added. I'd ask that "introduced" be replaced with something like "updated with natural language search" so it doesn't sound like Yelp introduced the API for the first time.
Alalbrech (talk) 18:33, 8 August 2025 (UTC)
Adding the COI request edit and pinging @Rusalkii: who reviewed some prior edit requests, for visibility. Thanks in advance for anyone who chimes in. Best regards. Alalbrech (talk) 18:35, 26 September 2025 (UTC)
Hi @Alalbrech - is this request for the bullets you have above? GoldRomean (talk) 00:52, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
@GoldRomean: Yes Alalbrech (talk) 15:00, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
@Alalbrech: 	 Done  1, 3 and 4. Could you please clarify what needs to be done for #2? ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me!  03:05, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
1 has been fixed, the mobile device stat has been removed, and the last paragraph has been reworded. ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me!  03:06, 14 November 2025 (UTC)