Misplaced Pages

Talk:Dun & Bradstreet Credibility Corp

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by NaomiAmethyst (talk | contribs) at 19:56, 2 June 2018 (Fix CB3 template.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 19:56, 2 June 2018 by NaomiAmethyst (talk | contribs) (Fix CB3 template.)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconCalifornia: Los Angeles Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by Los Angeles area task force (assessed as Low-importance).
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconCompanies Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Companies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of companies on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CompaniesWikipedia:WikiProject CompaniesTemplate:WikiProject Companiescompany
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Companies To-do:

 Here are some tasks awaiting attention:
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconFinance & Investment Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Finance & Investment, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Finance and Investment on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Finance & InvestmentWikipedia:WikiProject Finance & InvestmentTemplate:WikiProject Finance & InvestmentFinance & Investment
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives (Index)

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Lawsuits Dismissed

The lawsuits against Dun & Bradstreet Credibility Corp. have been dismissed. The motions to dismiss are publicly accessible documents and can be found at https://www.pacer.gov/.

--JennyCrawford (talk) 19:09, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Someone decided recently to bring back a whole slew of these issues without going to this talk page first to discuss. I'm going to delete the updates based on Jenny's latest comment that the lawsuits have been dismissed Tyrsdomain (talk) 05:22, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

This litigation is not in the ordinary course of business - it calls out a fraudulent basis for the business

The whole premise of this company was built around the idea that you could bilk small businesses into thinking they could manipulate their commercial credit scores by buying "credibility." These lawsuits show that not only is that a false premise, but that D&B themselves are manipulating small company credit reports in order to sell them the service. This is outright fraud on a massive basis to the tune of over $100M a year. The lawsuits are entirely relevant to what this company is doing and should be highlighted. With factual sources, as are cited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.112.199.82 (talk) 13:20, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

I understand your passion, but your main source is clearly not an impartial source: http://www.dandblitigation.com/ . Add that you posted this to both Dun & Bradstreet and this page and you seem to be ignoring that this conversation was already discussed in the "talk" thread below, and it seems this section is clearly not appropriate. Tyrsdomain (talk · contribs)

Obviously I read this talk before posting here.

The section you deleted is clearly appropriate and should be put back in the page and expanded. There are 5 lawsuits in 5 states all claiming the same thing: D&B is placing false information on business credit reports simply to sell the DBCC services. And this behavior is causing severe economic damage every day. This is truly unconscionable and just outright fraud. Your glossing over of the issue and removing that information from the page abetts the fraud. The whole basis of this business appears to revolve around destruction of small business. Why are you trying to hide that? I see you originated this page and continue to moderate it. You do not appear to be an impartial editor at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.149.125.147 (talk) 00:25, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Litigation and other problems

Dun and Bradstreet Credibility Corp. is being sued for fraud in connection with deceptive marketing practices. "O&R Construction, LLC v. Dun & Bradstreet Credibility Corporation et al", Washington Western District Court.. They've also been in trouble for buying backlinks to boost their search engine rankings. --John Nagle (talk) 07:08, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Undid "21:07, 7 January 2013‎ Tyrsdomain (talk · contribs) (4,339 bytes) (-1,909)‎ . . (Removed inaccurate claims)" which removed cited controversy section regarding above litigation and linking issues. Please do not delete that material without discussing it first. Thanks. --John Nagle (talk) 17:40, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
The sources being used to make the claims about deceptive marketing practices are self-generated press releases and blog posts. Clearly, John Nagle has an axe to grind with Dun & Bradstreet and Dun & Bradstreet Credibility Corp, and while I'm not a frequent editor of wikipedia, it would seem this is not an appropriate place to document these issues as facts. For that reason, I've removed this section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tyrsdomain (talk • contribs) 06:02, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
The six references deleted in ("Revision as of 06:05, 10 January 2013 Tyrsdomain (talk · contribs) (removed poorly sourced section)" were from reasonably good sources. For the link-buying issue, they were from Search Engine Land's Danny Sullivan and Search Engine Roundtable's Barry Schwartz. Those are generally considered good sources for what's happening in search, and the denial of responsibility by DBCC despite evidence of the problem is documented in those sources. For the lawsuit, the sources are the San Francisco Chronicle, Justia, and the law firm that filed the lawsuit. There's no real question that the lawsuit was filed. The text "The suit alleges that", followed by a direct quote, is appropriate.
Misplaced Pages is not a PR outlet. Negative information about companies is appropriate. See WP:SOAP, WP:OWN, WP:COI. --John Nagle (talk) 07:04, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
I agree that negative information is appropriate, but are those two instances of negative information significant enough to assign weight to in a balanced article? Are there any stronger sources covering the lawsuit than Courthouse News Service, and any stronger sources for the backlinking problem than search industry websites? It'd be good to have mainstream reliable sources (newspapers, etc.) to show significance for both positive and negative events. In any case, I believe events like these should be integrated into the history section instead of being sorted into a separate section for controversies (as the essay Misplaced Pages:Criticism recommends), which helps raise the question of whether they're significant parts of this company's history so far. I tried searching Google News to get a sense of the company's history in the past couple years, and neither of these incidents showed up, but not much else did either.
This came up in a normal Google Search though: "DBCC high-pressure tactics generate complaints" in the San Francisco Chronicle. That sounds worth covering briefly and fairly in the "history" section (noting both the complaints and the response from the company). Including this material while leaving out the previous "Controversy and litigation" section would be a way to represent dissatisfaction from customers without relying on relatively weak sources. Dreamyshade (talk) 08:31, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
OK, I can see that. There doesn't seem to be any question that the lawsuit was filed, and there's a WP:RS reliable source. Any other comments? --John Nagle (talk) 19:19, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
The issue I see with including lawsuits without strong secondary sourcing (even if verifiable) is that getting sued seems fairly routine/ordinary for prominent businesses in contentious industries like this one. I tried searching Google News archive for "dun bradstreet sued", and it returned lots of major newspaper articles about DBCC's parent company getting sued over the decades. It's possible that this lawsuit will get more press as it progresses; I believe it'd help with due weight in the article to set it aside until then (until we have a stronger signal that it's important). Dreamyshade (talk) 22:02, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
The Wall Street Journal just covered these issues, and I've updated the article accordingly. John Nagle (talk) 20:48, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Updated to add clarity to the sections Nagle added Tyrsdomain (talk · contribs)
Restored deleted "controversy" section. The Wall Street Journal article has a lot to say about DBCC's problems and is clearly relevant. John Nagle (talk) 07:12, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
Lawsuit proceeding. Updated article. John Nagle (talk) 04:14, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
Lawsuit still proceeding, despite the dismissal of some claims and the merger. I checked Pacer; there was court activity within the last week. John Nagle (talk) 06:22, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Dun & Bradstreet Credibility Corp. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:16, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Categories:
Talk:Dun & Bradstreet Credibility Corp Add topic