Talk:BlueHippo Funding

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Purely for comparison prices/evidence for the info provided: comparable systems for 1/4 to 1/8 the price:

Dell Inspiron 1200 Value Notebook 6.55lb Celeron M 360 1.4Ghz 256MB/40GB, CDRW/DVD, 14in, standard warranty, XP Home, - Now only $399 after $50 rebate and $100 off Coupon Code: 8W0VRFRHVLS4CS Exp Th 11/2 5:59am CT or after 4000 uses. $49 shipping.

TigerDirect has the far more powerful Gateway 827GM Refurb Media Center PC - AMD Athlon 64 3500+ / 512MB DDR / 200GB HDD / DVD±RW Dual-Layer / CD-ROM / Media Reader / ATI Radeon Xpress 200 Video / TV Tuner with DVR / Windows XP Media Center 2005 for a low $549.99, $35 shipping.

True, but both these computers have at least twice the memory, a DVD-player (which the Blue Hippo desktop system does not have). Furthermore, the first system listed here is a notebook computer, not a desktop. I think we're overvaluing the Blue Hippo system. I'm sure I could find a system comparable to the Blue Hippo system for much less. I'll post back with one, though it'll be difficult, since most systems offered today have at least 256 MB memory.

I think the price comparison of "$200" is way too low. BlueHippo seem to be offering discontinued Gateway machines (the latest Gateway offers has 512MB memory and a 160GB HDD, for $399). I figure perhaps $250 for the computer, and $100 for the monitor. (I'll note that none of above comparisons add in the price of the monitor.) I think upping the comparison price to $350 is reasonable. I'm "being bold" and updating it. -- Ch'marr 23:56, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for doing so. Someone changed 400 to 100, I then changed it from 100 to 200, you changed it to 350, based on newer research and offers. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Elvey (talk • contribs).

Yeah, I think 100 and 200 are far too low. Sure, you could get the equivalent system if you bought individual pieces yourself from the cheapeast suppliers around. But, we're not trying to compare the Gateway machine to the absolute cheapest machine out there. If we can use the highest 'reasonable' price, and still make BlueHippo look like a bad bad deal, then that's the best comparison all around. -- Ch'marr 01:03, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Contents 1 NPOV 2 More NPOV 3 Legit? 4 NPOV, again 5 Removal of alternative section

[edit] NPOV

The accusatory tone of this article needs to be toned way down. User:Zoe|^(talk) 04:06, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, I've worked it over a bit. I wouldn't say it's done yet, but it's a lot better. what do you think? BadgerBadger 22:03, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Although there are still problems, I object to your change in the first paragraph: "...(offering deals that are) substantially worse than standard for the market," to "Critics have claimed that the products offered by them are substantially below typical market quality standards." It drastically changed the meaning, for one thing (the deals are worse than standard, not the products themselves); but it also turned a statement verified later in the article into an ambiguous, unsourced claim. This company charges five times the normal price for a computer, requiring over twice the box price in payments before you can take it home; by any measure, things like that make their deals "substantially worse" than the standard, and any neutral introduction about them must note this. I do think that the article needs a more neutral tone, but attributing its description of the subject to unnamed sources is plainly not the right way to go about it. --Aquillion 01:50, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

:::The version I edited used the ambiguous phrase "offering them deals on computers, flat-screen televisions, and similar items that are substantially worse than standard for the market." which could arguably be interpreted either way. There is no source given for this, it is stated as an explicit unsourced fact. I'm changing it to reflect that the deals and not the product quality is substantially worse. In the interest of NPOV I still think it would be best to use "critics contend" or such. It does strike me as a very bad deal which ought to be noted as such, but I think analyzing it within the article would be Original Research and we both know that that is not allowed. Do you think you could find a good third party source for it? BadgerBadger 02:58, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Come to think of it, perhaps the best thing to do here would be to establish a Criticisms section? BadgerBadger 03:09, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

You know what, you're right. I'm changing it to simply note that the prices are above market standard. But we do need to find a citation for it. :P BadgerBadger 03:42, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Please don't establish a criticisms section. Just present the information in a neutral point of view. Wikipedia shouldn't endorse or not endorse any particular view about any particular subject. It is possible to present the information neutrally without having a criticism section. Peyna 04:49, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, that's true. Criticisms sections are usually only used on extremely controversial topics. BadgerBadger 05:50, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with establishing a criticism section as long as it is NPOV. It seems to be me this is needed since the majority of information is about criticism of BlueHippo's practises. I've placed a POV tag on this article as it will need a bit of cleanup to be NPOV. —Mitaphane _talk 03:13, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] More NPOV

Zoe pointed out that the "some have claimed... dangerous" line is bad because the contention is unsourced. I wrote it this way in light of the accusatory tone of the original article. The original spelled out the personal information required in detail. I basically just eliminated this and added the some have qualifier. So now, in consideration of Zoe's criticism, I've tried an alternative route. Rather than qualify the criticism, eliminate it but instead list the basis for it. What do y'all think? BadgerBadger 03:07, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Legit?

Is this a legit company? Well, I mean, aside from the usury, does it really exist? I just noticed a link to their homepage on a GNAA-run site . . . - Jersyko·talk 04:43, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh, they are legit in the sense that they exist. You can't turn on CNN in the mornings without seeing their television ads. One of the worst out-in-the-open scams out there. It's amazing. Even if you don't have good credit and can't get a credit card to order online from Dell, etc., stuff the equivalent of the payments into a sock for a couple of months and buy a low-end system from Circuit City or Best Buy or even Walmart or someplace, for goodness sakes. --Millard73 14:00, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV, again

I've cleaned it up quite a bit by starting with http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=BlueHippo_Funding&oldid=31007708 and updating it to reflect new information. All that remains are a couple citation issues. Jumbo Snails 00:20, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of alternative section

I'm removing the list of alternatives to the company. I'm not sure what the comment in text means about google source, but that's not the issue; It violates wikipedia policy. First, it has a hint of POV. Second, it violates WP:NOT, specifically Wikipedia articles should not include instruction - advice (legal, medical, or otherwise), suggestions, or contain "how-to"s. It's got to go. —Mitaphane _talk 13:11, 6 October 2006 (UTC)