Talk:Housejoy

Promotional content

Moved here.

Geo-targeted Technology

To cater to strong local customer demands, HouseJoy leveraged hyper-local market and adapted to geo-targeted technologies in August 2016.. The company claims that this has helped them cater to customer request in less than an hour and hope to make it better. This has also helped HouseJoy to provide geo specific services in certain locations and also provide discounts in geo specific location.

References

This is partly unsourced, and what is sourced is sourced to a churnalism ref. The content is also promotional. Please respond User:Sheethal10891. Jytdog (talk) 22:10, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Revert of 19 September 2018 edit

@Jytdog: don't make blanket reversion of a large edit, make it specific as to what you are complaining against.

• "badly sourced" - only bad source I think I added is KnowStartup but then its only used for the list of services provided and not for anything else. I am not sure whether Medianama is reliable, but the text sourced to that is also backed up by the Moneycontrol article. The difference is just that Medinama covers the incident more explicitly.
• "promotional edits" - ??
• "ignoring WP:LEAD" - this is not a reason to rm content, if u think some info should be in a section rather than in lead, why don't you move it yourself?
• "ignoring purpose of tag" - the purpose of the tag is to alert readers that article may be promotional as its written by a paid editor. But I don't think there's anything promotional here so I removed the tag - its not as if all articles by paid editors will forever continue to bear the ugly tag.

SD0001 (talk) 19:10, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

here is the edit.

Thanks for opening a discussion on talk. Please do be aware that the standard editing procedure is WP:BRD, not WP:BRRD.

The purpose of the tag is to alert editors that the page needs work. See [Wikipedia:Template_messages/Cleanup]]. The page is already in need to cleanup, and the edit made it more promotional yet, and didn't deal with the promotional content that was there and is still there.

I don't know if you aware of WP:LEAD, but the lead of an article just summarizes the body. There should be nothing in the lead, that is not well sourced in the body.

Adding a bolus of promotional, badly sourced content to the lead, is very typical promotional editing.

The edit added a bunch of SEO terms that was also directly copy-pasted from the source.

it is great that you updated the company's story but the "reception" remains very far from neutral. Jytdog (talk) 21:50, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Please stop your obnoxious behavior, you first send me a series of notices (afoul of Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars) including the edit warring notice and then you go ahead and yourself revert the article? You say that the standard editing procedure is BRD not BRRD, but then it is not BRRRD also, right?

I am not going to accept the allegations of adding promotional content unless you point out exactly what is promotional. Do not make such claims without strong evidence about the same. What I've added is regarding the appointment of CEO, ouster of co-founders, & shutdown of operations in 7 cities. These are all just facts.

Regarding your cmt about the lede - knock yourself off. WP:LEAD is part of the MOS and is not binding for all articles. Both you and I know that there are millions of articles whose lede is not the ideal lede advocated at WP:LEAD. For short articles like this one, it is not possible to put all info in sections and have the lede summarise it all.

I am not sure what you mean by SEO terms - if you mean the list of services I added to the first sentence - the intent was only to give readers an idea of what the company does, as "home services marketplace" is a vague description.

I did not touch the reception section because I didn't want to get into it. But again, most of it was criticism of the services provided so I don't understand how in the world is that non-neutral.

You continue to make wide-ranging aspersions without doing the slightest to improve the article yourself. You continue to say "badly sourced" - I am not that familiar with this content area so if I have unwittingly ref'ed to sources considered unreliable, please point them out. You do a blanket revert that includes changing back "and" to "&". Why? SD0001 (talk) 03:55, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Please focus on content.

I'll be happy to respond when you re-post, focused on content. Jytdog (talk) 04:20, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

I just fixed it. Jytdog (talk) 04:57, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. By the way, it did not escape my attention that the Reception part which you called non-neutral has remained exactly same after your fixes. And that you seem to have forgotten of WP:LEAD which you were strongly advocating until now. SD0001 (talk) 16:38, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

There is no lead anymore. Jytdog (talk) 16:42, 19 September 2018 (UTC)