Talk:Better Business Bureau

This is not the Better Business Bureau

You cannot contact the Better Business Bureau here

This is not the place to complain about any business

Visit the Better Business Bureau website at https://www.bbb.org/

Request to include 20/20 television show

20/20 exposé of BBB is not mentioned on this page. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yo8kfV9kONw —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.112.87.178 (talk) 18:13, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

It's been added.--Elvey (talk) 23:13, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

This article has also had requests for citations since 2008, and it still reads like an advertisement, of which it has been noted since Feb/2011 I will propose this for speed deletion if it is not at least attempted to be repaired!--75.17.201.58 (talk) 19:41, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

That's not how speedy deletion works; please see WP:SPEEDY. You're welcome to edit this article yourself. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 13:07, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

(Lack of) ratings system transparency

http://www.bbb.org/business-reviews/ratings/ and http://www.bbb.org/business-reviews/ratings/overview.html are quite detailed... but also very far from clear or precise.

As I read it, there's a maximum raw score of (8+20+20+10+15+8+5=) 86 and a minimum of (-41-10-41+2-21+1-12-5-5-30-41-5-41-10=) -259. It's unclear how this a particular score is scaled to the 0-100 range, but after that, it's converted to a letter grade using a typical scale.--Elvey (talk) 23:13, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Is the BBB A non-profit corporation?

Is the BBB a non-profit corporation? Tashiro (talk) 15:41, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

NO —Preceding unsigned comment added by Violetwanda (talk • contribs) 06:02, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, this is mentioned in the lede. VQuakr (talk) 05:09, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm curious; in Virginia, per https://sccefile.scc.virginia.gov/Business?as_fid=P%2B69UsHoEHgIDjbVNrod, there are two corps with a name like COUNCIL OF BETTER BUSINESS BUREAUS, and one is active:

F0429557 COUNCIL OF BETTER BUSINESS BUREAUS, INC. Foreign Corporation Active

The latter is a Delaware corp, not a Virginia corp. A search at https://delecorp.delaware.gov/tin/GINameSearch.jsp shows:

File Number: 0758122 Incorporation Date / Formation Date: 07/31/1970

Entity Name: COUNCIL OF BETTER BUSINESS BUREAUS, INC.

Entity Kind: CORPORATION Entity Type: NON-PROFIT OR RELIGIOUS --Elvey (talk) 23:10, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Warning to Editors

Be careful what/how you cite the CBBB website. The CBBB somehow blocks normal archival tools from its website, e.g. see http://www.webcitation.org/6CXy4xQCK and http://www.webcitation.org/6CXyFoAeO but see also http://archive.is/CaUi.--Elvey (talk) 22:54, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

The last section "From Consumer's Point of View" is extremely biased. It opens with a sentence that ends in an exclamation point. Wikipedia is terrible — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.228.95.46 (talk) 00:50, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

National Advertising Division merger proposal

I propose that National Advertising Division be merged into this article. It does not need its own article and it likely does not meet notability requirements. Moonboy54 (talk) 02:41, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Probably not a clean merge after looking at the National Advertising Division article.Mrm7171 (talk) 08:31, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Possibly a one sentence merge? I can see the logic for this proposal though.Mrm7171 (talk) 08:33, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I just figured NAD doesn't deserve its own article and it could fit into BBB. It seemed like a merge would be easier than deletion followed by incorporation into the BBB article.Moonboy54 (talk) 06:44, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

 Done Klbrain (talk) 09:06, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Article out of date 2015

UGG. This is bald face advertising. The Alexis claims are wrong. Almost all of it is from those who would financially benefit by it. It would take me all day to fix all this propaganda. I'm going to close my eyes and leave this mess to the innocent eyes that will be misled by it. 73.36.206.197 (talk) 23:37, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, this article is out of date. It is also the only available free source of information on the topic. If anything better that was free existed anywhere then that source could be copied here. I also wish somehow this could be improved. Think of this Wikipedia article as the first ever published record that a problem exists for lack of information on this topic. Blue Rasberry (talk) 00:09, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

"History" section has laughably poor quality

"Medical quackery and the promotions of nostrums and worthless drugs were among the most prominent abuses which led to the establishment of formal self-regulation in business and, in turn, to the creation of the NBBB."

The above is the entirety of the "History" section as it stands.

Now, I'm not sure if there's a lack of verifiable info or vandalism or if it's simply that nobody cares about the article, but this is just ridiculous and sad. Something needs to be done, but I have no idea where to start. If anyone else does, here's a plea to get on that if you've got the time.

This reflects badly on Wikipedia and harkens back to the days when this site wasn't considered an acceptable information resource by anyone, including the editors. RazingRazor (talk) 23:14, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

RazingRazor Thanks for commenting. This is an older article and has not been copyedited in years. It could use updating.

I am unable to develop this article, but I can address a few of your points. You say "harkens back to the days when this site wasn't considered an acceptable information resource by anyone" and "I have no idea where to start". These ideas are related. I see the biggest problem in this article as being poor citations. Wikipedia is only reliable to the extent that it mirrors the information in the sources it cites, and that it cites good sources. If anyone says "Wikipedia is not an acceptable information source", then the response from the Wikipedia community is supposed to be, "Do you know of better sources to cite, and do you see a place in this article where it is not reflecting the best sources available?"

Here are easy first steps that anyone can do to improve the article:

1. The reliable source rule says that in articles on organizations, Wikipedia avoids citing any sources written by the organization itself or its financial partners. To begin, remove all citations that go back to this organization's own website.
2. Once those citations are removed, delete all content which is not backed by a citation.
3. Whatever the result is, whatever remains is the best content that anyone has shared based on citations to the best sources identified. This might not be the best article, but at least accuracy and reliability of what is here will have gone up.

It could conceivably take a new user just 10 minutes to do this kind of clean up. Once the article is cleaned, it is easier for the Wikimedia community to protect its reliability now than it was in the past when this old self-referenced content was first put in. Having a slimmer, cleaner article also increases the chances that another volunteer will add good, properly sourced content to the article.

I appreciate your concern and could support you by commenting or helping you find guidelines or rules, but to get started - standard advice is to delete what is not appropriate to keep and that should be an objective decision. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:14, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Apologies if I've mislead you in any way. I'm fully aware that it's (mostly) an issue of the third option I presented, and verifiability is something I'm intimately familiar with (not that I'm necessarily okay with the current policies). Thank you for assuming good faith, though.

I'm pent up, but not so much that I need tea (a little strong, even your coffee was almost too much, thanks for that btw), so I...vented a little. Rather embarrassing, really. It just so happened to be for an article that actually needs some cleanup.

I'm afraid I would overdo it right now if I did it myself (read: USER IS LAZY BUM); I've actively avoided any sort of article rehauls in my wiki career because I'm too perfectionist on big stuff to allow others to help (and I'm not in the habit of turning this into my job), so I kindly pointed out a rather glaring issue. In an article with a few decent sized ones. That doesn't get much attention. And I may have used some colorful language at the end there describing the state of things.

I agree with your assertion that this article suffers from citation issues, but the outdatedness sticks out far worse to me. The really bad part is that I don't think there's a whole lot more to say that's remotely notable. So, I was a little...ahem, "irked" when I saw the legitimately pathetic History section. It was so...well, laughable, that I'm not quite sure how to decide on an angle of attack for that one. Or if I'm even up for it. I don't really approach Wikipedia as anything more than a hobby, so I just put a flier out. It's a tactic that's worked for me before (and made Wikipedia .000000001 % better, that's a win in my book), but I might actually do something if it goes too long like this. And I really don't want to. RazingRazor (talk) 17:57, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

I restored the section and tagged it as needing an overhaul. I think that commenting out the section without resolving the poor citation issues/outdatedness is not a good solution --Smasongarrison (talk) 21:31, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Request edit

Council of Better Business Bureau has restructured into three organizations. The information on this page would need to be updated. You can find more details here: https://bbbprograms.org/media/cbbb-restructures/

Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.205.108.2 (talk) 14:36, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Reply 28-AUG-2019

  Specification requested  

• It is not known what changes are requested to be made. Please state your desired changes in the form of "Change x to y using z".

Change x to y using z

x A verbatim description of the old text to be removed from the article (if any) y A verbatim description of the new text to be added to the article (if any) z A reference which verifies the requested change Example edit request: Please change: The Sun's diameter is 25 miles. ↑ This is x ↑ to read as: The Sun's diameter is 864,337 miles. ↑ This is y ↑ using as a reference: Harinath, Paramjit (2019). The Sun. Academic Press. p. 1. ↑ This is z ↑

Kindly open a new edit request at your earliest convenience when ready to proceed.
Regards,  Spintendo  19:49, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Redirect for NAD Redirected (Conflict of Interest Edit Request)

• What I think should be changed: The redirect for National Advertising Division currently pointing to this page.
• Why it should be changed: The National Advertising Divison, as of June 2019, is no longer affiliated with the Better Business Bureau. It is a division of BBB National programs, an independent non-profit organization.
• References supporting the possible change (format using the "cite" button):

I hope I have done this right and I do apologize if I haven't. (redacted) Thank you!

CreativeEditoratLarge (talk) 21:49, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

References

 Not done: Please follow the WP:RFD process for requests regarding redirects. Melmann 23:51, 2 July 2021 (UTC)