Contents

Talk:GetYourGuide

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

Companies Low‑importance 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.CompaniesWikipedia:WikiProject CompaniesTemplate:WikiProject Companiescompany articles 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 Germany Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany 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.GermanyWikipedia:WikiProject GermanyTemplate:WikiProject GermanyGermany articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Internet Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Internet 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.InternetWikipedia:WikiProject InternetTemplate:WikiProject InternetInternet articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Retailing Bottom‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Retailing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of retailing 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.RetailingWikipedia:WikiProject RetailingTemplate:WikiProject RetailingRetailing articles Bottom This article has been rated as Bottom-importance on the importance scale. Retailing To-do List: edit history watch purge Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Assess : SM Lanang Premier Copyedit : Retailing in India Expand :  :- Please expand this project's list of articles. The subcategories of Category:Retailers is also an excellent starting point. - Expand this project's image gallery page - More articles for expansion: Automated retail, Big-box store, Chain store, Hypermarket, Store manager NPOV : Retail loss prevention Photo : Retail design Stubs : Leakage (retail), Retail geography Verify : Department store, Discount store, Retail clerk, Retail in the Republic of Ireland, Retail media, Retail software, Suggested retail price Other : * Please add this project's banner {{WikiProject Retailing}} to retail-related talk pages. Also, bots can be utilized to automate this task. Also, add biographies to the articles list. –When a task is completed, please remove it from the list.

Individuals with a conflict of interest, particularly those representing the subject of the article, are strongly advised not to directly edit the article. See Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. You may request corrections or suggest content here on the Talk page for independent editors to review, or contact us if the issue is urgent.

The Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use require that editors disclose their "employer, client, and affiliation" with respect to any paid contribution; see WP:PAID. For advice about reviewing paid contributions, see WP:COIRESPONSE. Tlvernon (talk · contribs) has been paid by self-employed. Their editing has included contributions to this article. Tlverson states they were paid by GetYourGuide to revise and edit the page in this post

• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

HiTlvernon. 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)[reply]

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

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest was declined. Per WP:TOOMANYREFS.

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]

Reply 30-SEP-2023[edit]

 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.^[a]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered.

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

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 ^[1]

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

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)[reply]

@Gnom: I added it to the Request Edit queue. Let me know if you disagree with it. Thanks for the consideration! Claresayasronning (talk) 18:13, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Claresayasronning Request above implemented. ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 00:07, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An impartial editor has reviewed the proposed edit(s) and asked the editor with a conflict of interest to go ahead and make the suggested changes.

Hi. My name is Clare and I work for GetYourGuide. In compliance with WP:COI, I'd like to request the following changes/updates:

1. Infobox

Explanation: Jochen Mattes is not a cofounder. You can see all of the co-founders listed individually in this German news article. There are some blogs and other websites that list Jochen, but I haven't seen anything Wikipedia would consider a reliable source and suspect some of these websites got this mis-information from Wikipedia itself.

2. Lead

Explanation: Updating the numbers with a more recent Fast Company citation. However, the number of countries, languages, and currencies supported I don't have an updated citation for and they fluctuate regularly.

Claresayasronning (talk) 11:13, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Claresayasronning: No problem with these – you can also go ahead and make these changes yourself. Gnom (talk) 13:43, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The user below has a request that an edit be made to GetYourGuide. That user has an actual or apparent conflict of interest. The requested edits backlog is high. Please be very patient. There are currently 152 requests waiting for review. Please read the instructions for the parameters used by this template for accepting and declining them, and review the request below and make the edit if it is well sourced, neutral, and follows other Wikipedia guidelines and policies.

My name is Clare and I work for GetYourGuide. The current History section has a paragraph near the beginning that (a) is uncited (b) is partially redundant with the prior sentence (c) is the only information on the page regarding 5+ years of history as the company was starting out (d) has a lot of strange/awkward language/wording. I'd like to propose replacing that paragraph with a cited and expanded 2.5 paragraph draft that adds information about funding rounds as follows:

1. History section expansion/citations

Claresayasronning (talk) 15:09, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Claresayasronning, there are actually quite a few aspects of your proposed edit that I don't like:

• The word officially should be generally avoided as a "weasel word".
• We might not need to name the four founders as their names might be irrelevant (at least in that sentence).
• The same applies to the fact that the founders were "friends" and the claim that they initially earned less than minimum wage.
• Do we really need to list all of the investments? I would say that only the unicorn valuation is relevant.
• The sentence explaining the business model is relevant, it should not be kept at least somewhere in the article.

Thank you, Gnom (talk) 14:39, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Gnom:. I adjusted the above request based on your feedback. I summarized the smaller funding rounds as "raised $170 million in funding over four funding rounds from 2009 to 2017" if that works?

For the uncited sentence "The business model for GetYourGuide stipulates that it does not offer its own tours or activities..." the Services section later contradicts this with a cited sentence: "In August 2018, GetYourGuide began selling tours under its own brand name." The sentence in the Services section is also a bit off though, because it doesn't mention GetYourGuide stopped offering GetYourGuide-branded events years ago. I suggest the following (in the Services section): "Generally, the activities are operated by third-parties that pay GetYourGuide a commission for each booking.^[1]"

Let me know if there's anything else I can do to be of assistance. Thanks so much for your help! Claresayasronning (talk) 16:07, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Great, looks good now. Gnom (talk) 11:17, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Gnom:. I put the new content in. Let me know if that was ok. Claresayasronning (talk) 17:05, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The user below has a request that an edit be made to GetYourGuide. That user has an actual or apparent conflict of interest. The requested edits backlog is high. Please be very patient. There are currently 152 requests waiting for review. Please read the instructions for the parameters used by this template for accepting and declining them, and review the request below and make the edit if it is well sourced, neutral, and follows other Wikipedia guidelines and policies.

My name is Clare and I work for GetYourGuide. My last edit request expanded on the company's early history after review/feedback from @Gnom:. I'd like to expand on the more recent history as well, with a summary of independent citations discussing the ups and downs of the company from 2017 - current. Below is the proposed content:

1. Add to History section after the "In November 2017..." sentence

Explanation: Adding cited content to expand History section.

Claresayasronning (talk) 17:07, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Claresayasronning, which "part" of the pandemic are we talking about? Also, I am wondering if the pandemic should be mentioned in the article at all, but I am happy to discuss that. Gnom (talk) 20:18, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi@Gnom: Here's what the cited sources say:『its revenues erased during the early days of the pandemic — for multiple consecutive quarters the company made no revenue whatsoever, he said.』and "“We went from high-flying to zero revenues — zero revenues for multiple quarters,” CEO and co-founder Johannes Reck recalled."

I'm indifferent to whether it's included and defer to you. The Services section says: "In August 2018, GetYourGuide began selling tours under its own brand name." and I'd prefer this specific phrase re: selling tours be in the history section, since GetYourGuide doesn't do that anymore.

Claresayasronning (talk) 15:08, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, let's maybe reduce it to one sentence. Gnom (talk) 09:08, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]