Talk:Uswitch

The following Wikipedia contributor may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view. USwitch (talk · contribs)

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Companies Low‑importance Companies portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Companies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of companies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Companies To-do: Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : Wikipedia:Requested articles/Business and economics/Companies Assess : Category:Unassessed company articles Copyedit : Category:Company articles needing attention Infobox : Category:Company articles needing infoboxes Maintain : Portal:Companies Stubs : Help expand stub articles located at Category:Company stubs Other : Tag company articles with the {{portal|Companies}} template Tag company talk pages with the {{WikiProject Companies}} project banner Answer requests for comments Websites: Computing Low‑importance This article is part of WikiProject Websites, an attempt to create and link together articles about the major websites on the web. To participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Computing. United Kingdom Low‑importance United Kingdom portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Criticism of their commission based model

I know in the past the company has been criticised because of the commissions it makes off people switch - there have been accusations that the company might therefore promote the deal that is best for them rather than the consumer. Anyone got any good sources about the matter? --Fredrick day 14:22, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

All price comparison website receive payments from the organisations they send customers to, so this criticism is a criticism of industry practice rather than uSwitch in particular. uSwitch has in the past been criticised for not giving full/fair results.Jasonfward 22:45, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Criticism of their business practices

The Mirror in their Money section (13 March 2006, page 51) published a letter from uSwitch to British Gas where uSwitch said that if BG paid uSwitch £15 million they would stop customers from switching away from BG. A copy of the article can be found http://myvesta.org.uk/blog/2006/03/exclusive-gas-leak.html Jasonfward 22:34, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

For use

I don't have time right now, here's some good links - if nobody uses them in the next few days, when I am less busy on Friday I will have a crack at the article). Neil (►) 16:47, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

• http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/03/29/bt_uswitch/
• http://money.guardian.co.uk/utilities/story/0,,1969281,00.html
• http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4813192.stm
• http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4631190.stm
• http://timesbusiness.typepad.com/money_weblog/2006/02/uswitch_i_benef.html
• http://www.britannia.co.uk/c_partnerships/uswitch/index.html

Notable yes, but...

uSwitch is notable, and so are a few other switching sites, but this article as it currently stands is out and out spam in my view.

I actually wrote the original uSwitch website and I think one of the main reasons that makes uSwitch notable was that it was the first website of its kind, when the project was first being described to me I couldn't believe it was possible to make money that way.

However, there is nothing particularly notable about the content of uSwitch current offering compared to their many competitors and the current article just reads a corporate article.

And sorry if I am doing this wrong this is the first time I've ever got involved with wikipedia.

Jasonfward 23:35, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I should point out that, whilst I have an obvious conflict of interest, uSwitch being my employers, so does Jasonfward, who is employed by one of our competitors. — OwenBlacker 12:08, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

You both have a COI but you have both declared them so I don't see any serious problems - if you think any of your edits might be "suspect" - run them past the talkpage first. The page is clearly standing so we need to ensure it has a NPOV. --Fredrick day 12:47, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree. So long as we're both honest about stuff, I can't see there being any problems. :o) — OwenBlacker 11:28, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Despite my working for a competitor, I do have a soft spot of uSwitch in so much as of all the website's I worked on back in the first internet boom its the only one that still exists. I was though a little surprised by the article I originally found as it seemed to have been written as a piece of marketing material. Perhaps we should each just write the articles for each others employer? ;) although in truth, having read many articles here on wikipedia I am struggling to write content that fits with the style. Jasonfward 15:58, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

What does NPOV mean? (I'm guessing "no point of view") Jasonfward 15:58, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I didn't think it was all that non-neutral, to be honest, but I'm happy to see other Wikipedians make the article more balanced, so that everyone is happy that it's suitably encyclopædic.

Nearly: NPOV is Neutral Point of View — one of Wikipedia's most important policies. See WP:NPOV for more details. — OwenBlacker 16:10, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Latest edits

I find myself unhappy with this latest version of the article but I do have a conflict of interest, undoubtedly influencing my views. And I find it surprising the level of detail apparently known by independents, or people who have not declared a conflict of interest.

In short I find the current article overly generous towards uSwitch. But I am reluctant to edit the article any more myself. Jasonfward 15:52, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

which bits or sentences in particular are you concerned with? --Fredrick day 15:58, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

does that read any better? --Fredrick day 16:06, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Frederick, the philosophy bit rankled the most with me, I'm not at all sure it was appropriate for an encyclopedia, but your edits I think cure that vast majority of what I didn't like. Jasonfward 16:27, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes - it was getting a bit ... how shall we say... unbalanced. If you want to make changes, Jason - make them, yes you have a COI but you have declared it - if they look promblematical, well we can work that out. --Fredrick day 16:45, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

UK price comparison portal

I've given this some thought now and I wonder if there should actually be an effort to create a set articles around the price comparison websites (perhaps with switching sites as a subset). Between 2000 and now these companies and websites have transform many sectors (energy in the UK in particular). It would also mean that notes on industry criticism and regulation could go were they are more appropriate rather (right now) in uSwitches article.

Sorry if this is in the wrong place, I am still figuring my way around Wikipedia. Jasonfward 19:29, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I found this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_switching_services_in_the_UK not quite what I was thinking, and indeed a subset of switching sites... but an interesting start. Jasonfward 19:43, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Are uSwitch.com and Uswitch-business.com related?

Are you Are uSwitch.com and Uswitch-business.com related?

Reply: I would say since they use the same name and are in the same business they are definatly related, otherwise scripts would be making noise and heading to the courts.

I think the newly inserted bits in the article about Uswitch-business.com are weasel and should be removed. Jasonfward 10:44, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

It should also be noted that 81.152.109.194 wrote both this question, and wrote the article saying they were unrelated. Jasonfward 11:00, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Conflict of interest discussion

There's a conflict of interest discussion going on at WP:COIN#uSwitch and Energy switching services in the UK regarding recent edits made by uSwitch to the articles uSwitch and Energy switching services in the UK. Please could anyone interested in these two articles take a look at both that discussion and the edits in question (1, 2) and post their opinions to the COI discussion.

Thanks! — OwenBlacker (who works at uSwitch.com), 11:05, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Press releases make for poor sources

A great deal of the article is drawn all from a single source, the "Scripps acquires uSwitch" press release. This makes for a very poor source, and shouldn't be used alone. If third-party sources aren't forthcoming to support this information, anything that is at all questionable should be removed. --Ronz 01:33, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd say that press releases are perfectly acceptable sources for certain things, like bland statements of fact that a company really couldn't get away with lying about (like changes of ownership), or statements of things that the organisation releasing the press release really is most qualified to talk about (like their own policies, mission statements, etc). Other matters can reasonably be sourced to such things if the article reads "X claims/states/whatever Y", rather than just stating "Y". SamBC(talk) 01:45, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Hence I qualified myself with, "anything that is at all questionable should be removed." We've COI and NPOV issues here. Press releases are insufficient for such problems. --Ronz 16:55, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, I didn't mean to seem disagreeing, more clarifying. Anything "at all questionable" would seem to be broader than what I describe, but if you meant basically the same, then we agree. SamBC(talk) 17:39, 30 September 2007 (UTC)