Talk:GetYourGuide

Problems

• Reference number 2 appears to be editable from the outside world rather than a reliable publishing source. C1776M^Talk 17:24, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
• Reference number 3 seems ok at first, but I'm not sure it substantiates the claim of visitors to the website because it clearly states that the company "claims" they have that many visitors. I could go either way on this one, Forbes is obviously a trusted source. But it also says they're up and comers, not they've come. To me that translates "soon to be notable, not yet notable." C1776M^Talk 17:32, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
• Reference number 4 (tnooz) is just a transcription of an interview so that is a primary source document and should probably be scrapped. C1776M^Talk 17:40, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
• Not a problem - Reference number 5 is the strongest so far in my opinion. When I was reviewing it originally I didn't even get that far though because the rest of the article up to that point was primary sources. C1776M^Talk 17:46, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

That last comment contains hyperbole. I wasn't literally saying there was nothing that wasn't primary. C1776M^Talk 17:49, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

• Not a problem - Reference 6 (wsj) is a great source. I agree that it doesn't count as a 'blog' like mentioned on your talk page. The information in that source alone should give you an entire section on the merging/acquiring/whatever of Gidsy, and google tells me there are plenty of other news articles to back that one up. C1776M^Talk 17:54, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
• Reference 7 (wsj) has tons of information in it, but you only used that they've partnered with two well known companies... That looks like bias. The article also talks about their competitors (yours should too), it talks about where their monetary support came from to start with (yours should too), etc. C1776M^Talk 18:02, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

• The last thing I'll point out for now. And this is what causes me, personally, to stop and take a harder look at a page when I'm patrolling new pages. Formatting. If the article is meant to explain and describe a notable company in an encyclopedic manner it will not be a single blurb of "this is what we they offer. It will include multiple sections covering, how/when it was founded, who they compete with, who they work with, mergers or other significant changes to their structure or business plan, problems that faced the company, etc. Also, any time there is an external link to the company's website above any references I immediately look for signs of WP:NOTAD. C1776M^Talk 18:08, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

That sounds all very interesting - but does it justify deleting the article right away? --Gnom (talk) 08:25, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, since you've been around for a long time I assume you know how WP:NPP works. The page as it stands looks like a promotional site. So, yeah, it justified me nominating it for deletion. I assume the admin that deleted it agreed or they wouldn't have deleted it. The article history doesn't show anymore but I work from the back of the NPP queue, so it would have been fairly old by the time I nominated it. C1776M^Talk 08:36, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Alright, can we move it back to the article namespace then? Thanks, --Gnom (talk) 10:17, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

It hasn't been changed yet, so it runs the risk of someone else doing the exact same thing and having to go through this process all over again. Why not fix it up here first then move it back to namespace? I agree that it seems to meet the notability requirements but I still think it needs work on NPOV and layout. I think this is a reasonable argument since both I and the admin that deleted it thought it was clearly an advertisement (enough for a CSD). I can work on it a little bit in a few hours if you like. C1776M^Talk 13:51, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

What I've been asking myself is, why do you think the article is "clearly an advertisement"? I simply don't understand why it got deleted - you know how that curbs your motivation... So: Can't be the references. And it can't be the lack of information about investors, mergers etc. which I find superfluous for an article of this length. So you said it's formatting - but the only sentence where you talk about formatting is when you say the external links section should be below the references. But that doesn't justify deleting the article, does it? (The reason I put the sections in this order because that's how we do it in German Wikipedia. I just found WP:ORDER now...). I would be really happy if we could move the article back to the main namespace and continue working on it there, because in my opinion, it's a perfectly acceptable stub about a website/internet company right now. I can't find anything that's violating the NPOV. Sigh. --Gnom (talk) 13:04, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Hey Gnom, sorry I haven't worked on it yet. I'm currently deployed and in the middle of a major change to my schedule so I'm a little out of it. I think it's perfectly acceptable to move it back. The reason I suggest(ed) you not yet is because it was already nominated for CSD then deleted. That means two different people looked at it and said "that looks like pure advertisement. I will try to work on it after I go to dinner (leaving now), whether it's here in your sandbox or in article space. I'll move the external links section now since that's a huge red flag to some people. C1776M^Talk 13:15, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

What do you think of those edits? C1776M^Talk 16:08, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Wonderful, thank you! ----Gnom (talk) 19:40, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Good. I suggest you create a redirect from Gidsy to this page after you move it back to namespace. C1776M^Talk 19:52, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Paid contributions

I am a self-employed freelance writer who was paid directly by GetYourGuide to revise and edit this pageTlvernon (talk) 19:33, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi Tlvernon. I've returned this post back to its original location and replaced it with Template:Connected contributor (paid). If you can clarify who your employer is, then I can add that to the template. So, if you're working for a PR agency, etc. and GYG is one of your clients, then please clarify. Same goes if you're self-employed.

You will also need to follow WP:PAID with respect to any edits you make to this article, and declare your connection on your user page. You can do that just adding a simple statement or by using Template:Paid. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:48, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Restored to latest version

This page was reverted to an earlier version, I restored it to the latest version.Tlvernon (talk) 19:40, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

@Tlvernon:. I moved this post back to it's original location as well. New posts should be added to the bottom of talk pages per WP:TPG. You should also try and always add a section heading whenever you start a new thread so as to prevent it from being mixed up with an existing thread. As I posted at WP:THQ#Vandalism?, I suggest that you undo the expansion you made to the article (before someone comes along and does it for you) and follow WP:PSCOI instead. Other than a WP:MINOR change likely to be deemed uncontroversial (i.e., a simple spelling correction, etc.), any other changes should be proposed on this talk page first by making an edit request. You might also want to explain to GYG that they have no final editorial control over article content and that you can only edit in accordance with relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines; so, if GYG wants to propose changes to the article through you they can, but the proposal will only be accepted if it complies with relevant policies and guidelines. If GYG views this Wikipedia article as sort of a "official homepage" or as a way to further promote their business, then you should explain to them that is not Wikipedia's role at all. If you have more questions about paid editing or COI editing, you can ask them at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:58, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Paid contribution, I deleted content from the intro paragraph and 2018 section that might be considered too promotional.Tlvernon (talk) 19:15, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Paid contribution, see talk page. Removed maintenance tag after editing material that might be considered too promotional.Tlvernon (talk) 22:00, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Proposed changes

Hi. My name is Clare and I work for GetYourGuide. In compliance with WP:COI, I'd like to share some suggested changes here for an impartial editor to consider. These address three issues:

• Likely COI Issues: Adding citation needed tags, trimming lists of offices/partners, trimming routine executive appointments, trimming editorialized content, etc. that was probably added by someone at GetYourGuide at some point in the past (sorry)
• Correction: Trimming references to GetYourGuide being a travel agency. GetYourGuide is not a travel agency and none of the cited source allege it is. Though, you can find travel providers on the site.
• Products/service: The History section is peppered with products/service info that should probably go into a Services, Website, or Products type section.

Let me know if there is any other way I can be of assistance or anything I can do to make the proposed edits easier to review. Claresayasronning (talk) 17:15, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Reply 30-SEP-2023

 Declined

1. The draft of your proposed changes contain instances where multiple references are bundled together to source the exact same information. In instances where multiple sources reference the same information, only one reference should be used.
2. To that end, please draw up a new edit request which eliminates instances where bundled citations exist, and feel free to submit that new edit request at your earliest convenience. Regards,  Spintendo  23:13, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Notes

Thanks Spintendo. I've revised the proposed changes so that it also proposes some trims to excessive citations. However, I only intended to propose incremental improvements to address some of the most glaring problems on the page for now. Let me know, please, if this works? Claresayasronning (talk) 17:07, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Requested changes

I work for GetYourGuide and I proposed some changes to correct that GetYourGuide is an online marketplace, not a travel agency, and to trim lists of "business alliances... employees...offices..." etc. per the WP:NOTPRICE policy that prohibits directory information. A few other things as well. These changes are intended as an incremental improvement that still leaves a lot of room for future improvement/expansion, but puts the page on a path towards rehabilitation.

@Graywalls: said he supports the edits (also noting the page needs more work). He asked that I make a copy/paste-ready version of the article with the edits incorporated, which I've done here. This draft still has a lot of problems with uncited content, a Forbes Contributor, etc. but my hope is merely to make progress before working on additional improvements/expansion. Claresayasronning (talk) 19:07, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Sounds good, I would say. Gnom (talk) 19:24, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

 Done. Graywalls (talk) 01:20, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

There's some contents over at https://www.cnbc.com/2023/06/01/travel-firm-getyourguide-raises-194-million-at-2-billion-valuation.html Graywalls (talk) 01:44, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Updates

The current page is in much better shape now. However, a lot of the cited sources don't say what they are cited for, don't mention GetYourGuide at all[1], aren't fully utilized, are to improper sources[2], or are brief blurbs[3]. There's also some uncited content, name-dropping of investors, out-dated crystal ball content about "plans" to move the company's HQ, and so on.

I'd like to share a proposed draft as a replacement. It is similar to the current page in terms of the overall emphasis and flow of events, but adds more detail, relies on better citations, and improves the quality/accuracy throughout every paragraph. Pinging @Gnom: and @Graywalls:, who responded when I proposed edits last December. Let me know if you would prefer I provide an annotated version showing the changes or do one section at-a-time.

Please see my COI disclosure on my user page or elsewhere on this Talk page. I work for GetYourGuide. Thanks for the consideration! Claresayasronning (talk) 15:13, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Hello @Claresayasronning, thank you for this. I have to say that I am very much in favour of incremental edits that are spaced out over time. Gnom (talk) 15:42, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Sometimes they just end up getting done that way as different editors nibble at things as they feel like or their time allows since no one is expected or obligated to make a large time consuming edit at once. Graywalls (talk) 18:40, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

No problem. I'll break it down into smaller requested changes. Does the below format work @Gnom:?

−

The idea for GetYourGuide was conceived in 2007 by co-founders Johannes Reck and Tao Tao.

+

The idea for GetYourGuide was conceived of in 2008 by co-founders Johannes Reck and Tao Tao, who were college roommates attending the [[Swiss Federal Institute of Technology]].

Explanation: The current citation does say GetYourGuide was founded in 2007, but most sources say 2008.[4][5][6]. This also adds more cited information.

Citation to add: Article in Sifted

Claresayasronning (talk) 16:06, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Okay with me, although I am a bit wary of emphasising on 'origin myths' of this kind. Gnom (talk) 07:46, 4 May 2024 (UTC)