Talk:Netflix/Archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Question from Islandboy99: As an encyclopedia, is the information about Netflix's prices relevant and/or necessary, or is that leaning towards a form of advertising. While the information is factual, what about simply saying that Netflix charges a flat monthly fee based on the number of DVD's the consumer would like to have checked out at once?

I rewriten in an abstract form. It should be better now. Thanks -- Taku
I think that the pricing information is relevant, especially since Netflix's position as market leader holds considerable sway over the prices of its competitors. Consider how more than half of its competitors launched with exactly the same price point -- $19.99 -- during the time when NetFlix charged this amount. Their decision to reduce the price to $17.99 may indeed have significant effects, as their market dominance would likely allow them to provide their service more efficiently, thanks to economies of scale. Kuchiguchi

Contents

Patent

It said that Netfilx has a patent on the envelope under the image caption, but doesn't mention this in the article. Anyone have more information? --ShaunMacPherson 12:19, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia Showing Favoritism?

Though I'm no fan of Blockbuster I've compared Wikipedia's page on Netflix and Blockbuster Video. I've Noticed Wikipedia has given Netflix a glowing review but heavily criticized Blockbuster for attempting to takeover Hollywood Video, legal battles with their "No Late Fee" policy, and concerns over censorship. I've also noticed Wikipedia has included anti-Blockbuster links on their Blockbuster video page.

How about balancing your Netflix page by including Netflix's "throttling" policy which prevents users from renting unlimited DVDs?

How about including My Opinion of Netflixas an external link which appraises Netflix customer service? Also, Wikipedia makes no reference to Blockbuster online rental service.

  • One word: proof --Badlydrawnjeff 19:14, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Proof? Where have you been in the last 7 months? Netflix announced back in February they were throttling customers. Look at the Terms of Useon their site:

"In determining priority for shipping and inventory allocation, we give priority to those members who receive the fewest DVDs through our service. As a result, those members who receive the most movies may experience next-day shipping and receive movies lower in their Queue more often than our other members."

    • Manuel, I read the blogs, I even read your site. I know your agenda, and your idea of what throttling truly is and what Netflix does are two very, very different things. Again, when you can provide proof, maybe it'll be included here. --Badlydrawnjeff 7 July 2005 13:36 (UTC)
    • It's only a matter of time before this Netflix and Blockbuster entry are rewritten. I would take my position as an editor more seriously. If Wikipedia has no standards to follow then you should use your own morals to guide you.

Bad service from netflix

While seemingly a great idea, netflix's execution is poor. Many disks arrive damaged. They skip to the point of being uwatchable. Netflix's solution, to send another disk, is ludicrous since they automatically send a new disk anytime you return a rented disk. The point isn't to send a new disk. The point is to deliver a usable product.

I have yet to find this reported in major newspapers or magazines. We can't just write the article based on some anecdotal accounts. But I do have experienced some of this sometimes, so it may be be true. -- Taku 02:25, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

Facts

Some of facts you might want to incorporate follow (I will if I have time in future) from Economist article:

  • "Netflix uses 35 distribution centres within metropolitan markets to help it meet its aim of overnight delivery."
  • Frequently-cited Mr Hastings's story. He had to pay $40 late fee to Blockbuster and this motivated him to start Netflix.
  • Similar service in Japan
  • "Netflix has $175m in cach and no debt."
  • Some elaboration why subscribers stick to Netflix instead of switching to Blackbuster.

Do not forget necessary citation. -- Taku 02:25, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

Netflix Reroutes Traffic Through Security Holes

On March 14, 2005, Benjamin Edelman had discovered that Netflix uses spyware to reroute traffic from its competitors. The spyware installs from web sites exploiting security holes in Windows XP without the user's knowlege.Computer Associates makers of PestPatrol define the virus as adware which "'Installs or updates without user permission or knowledge at time of installation.' The following files were installed without permission: adv.exe (44 KB), adv.exe (32 KB), and bargains.exe. Second, it 'Silently connects to an unintended location to transmit personal information.'"

Update: The information above is from a highly biased source (Manuel) and is a distortion of the facts. While Netflix is mentioned in the initial report above, Edelman does note that it is probably the work of an affiliate and not Netflix.

The recently released report by Benjamin Edelman and the Center for Democracy and technology [1] does not state that Netflix is using spyware to promote the service. Nefarious Netflix affiliates are violating Netflix's published affilate agreement which is one of the few to address spyware ("You shall not, in any way, utilize pop-over Advertisements or Spyware to promote the Netflix Service") [2].

This is the text from the report that references Netflix:

Netflix is one example of a company we contacted that already had an advertising policy in place to address adware. Netflix expressed concern that its ads are appearing via 180solutions software since the Netflix policy explicitly prohibits the display of ads through any adware or spyware program. A Netflix representative investigated the situation and assured CDT that the example found was unique and random, and that the behavior that caused the ad to be served by 180solutions software had ceased. However, within hours of receiving this notification, CDT found three more examples of Netflix ads generated by adware programs. It is important to note that Netflix is one of the largest online advertisers that CDT contacted. To CDT, this illustrates the difficulty that large companies have in enforcing their policies given the current online advertising environment, and the complex web of relationships involved with placing ads. Some companies have instituted detailed auditing processes to address this concern, but more emphasis must be placed throughout the advertising industry on policing advertising networks and dealing only with trustworthy affiliates.

Netflix responds in the Seattle PI [3]:

Netflix spokesman Steve Swasey, one of the biggest advertisers named in the report, said that it has zero tolerance for adware and spyware programs that are downloaded without consumers' knowledge. "We don't condone it, we don't accept it, we don't approve it," Swasey said. "On the rare occasion that it happens we crack down on it and we take extreme measures with our affiliates."

There is no proof that Netflix is marketing the service through the use of spyware. Be aware that Manuel is highly biased and has a stated agenda against Netflix. He has also made personal attacks against Netflix CEO Reed Hasting on the site ("Q: What would happen if greedy Reed Hastings was in charge of human lives? A: People would die") [4].

Hacking Netflix

Move some info to "Online DVD rental"?

I've started to modify the Online DVD rental entry that someone created. It would be a good place for some of the generic info about DVD rentals, and much of the "Competing services" section could move here, and some of the "imitators" paragraph from the Corporate History section.

Deleting list of warehouses

Much of the information on warehouses, pricing, etc. was deleted in a number of uncommented edits by the anonymous user "66.167.58.189" on August 21/2005, before being reverted by User:Rhobite. While the deletions may have been over-drastic, there is a good case that some of this detail really doesn't belong in a reference article. Perhaps some of this could be summarized, or links to other information provided (I believe there is a website that tracks Netflix warehouse locations, for example). Any comments or suggestions? It is unfortunate that the [http://www.dvdrr.com DVDrr.com[ site doesn't seem to be updated any more - it was a use place to refer to for pricing plans. David Oberst 17:25, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

It was vandalism. The user also deleted all the information about Netflix's history. I don't really have a problem with the list of warehouses, but maybe we could move it to its own article. Let's not delete any information. This article isn't too lengthy, and none of the information in it is clearly superfluous. It is all useful. Rhobite 20:36, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

The history is a little "puffy", and the warehouse list long and ugly, so it may just have been a extreme case of throwing the baby out with the bathwater. It could probably be rewritten more concisely, and extraneous info about the inventory genres, the name of their movie criitic, etc. pruned.

Unfortunately, Netflix doesn't seem to provide any authoritative list of distribution center locations on their website. There is an unofficial site that has something[5] - perhaps the author could be invited to help edit this wiki section, or create a more useful external list page that could be linked to. Also, the warehouse info (wherever it ends up) could be in a more compact form, such as:

I don't know if you could get a good alignment between the first warehouse in a state and subsequent ones, though, and it would be a shame to use two lines for the majority of states that only have a single distribution center. HTML table code could do something like this, but is very unfriendly. I'll have to check the Wiki table syntax to see if something like the following is possible:

STATE Warehouse
Code		 Address
Colorado DEN PO Box 5950, Denver, CO 80217-5950
Pennsylvania ??? PO Box 69050, Harrisburg, PA 17106-9050
PITT PO Box 535304, Pittsburgh, PA 15253-9825
PHIL PO Box 1104, Southeastern, PA 19398-1104 [Philadelphia]

Any other suggestions? David Oberst 04:46, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Sorry about the delay replying. I think the table is an excellent idea, many articles use tables for conveying this kind of information. If you use tables, please read up on the special wiki markup - it's better than using TD and TR tags. Also, I'd use rowspans for states if necessary, so that the state's name spans all the warehouses in that state. Rhobite 01:08, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

I like the idea of spinning off the distribution center (fyi - that is the accurate name rather than warehouses) list into its own page. I am familiar with the Netflix DC hubs and could add specific information concerning their general operations, staffing, etc including references and pictures. By the way, the Listology link[6] referrenced above is very out of date now; the author of that page hasn't updated it in quite some time. The listing on this wiki entry is much more complete. User:marrek

Likewise, some of the older additions people have made to this list may now be obsolete. Netflix claims 35 warehouses on their website (no list); this may not be updated (the most recent "new warehouse" press release pointedly doesn't mention the total number of warehouses), although I can't see why they would undercount themselves. There is a yahoo group on Netflix operations I've been lurking on (I'm Canadian, so it is only out of idle interest), and I'll post a note there calling for information. Here's a wiki-ish version of the previous table. I might reformat the article like this, but it will be a fairly low-priority call on my free time!

STATE Warehouse
Code		 Address
Colorado DEN PO Box 5950, Denver, CO 80217-5950
Pennsylvania  ??? PO Box 69050, Harrisburg, PA 17106-9050
PITT PO Box 535304, Pittsburgh, PA 15253-9825
PHIL PO Box 1104, Southeastern, PA 19398-1104 [Philadelphia]

David Oberst 19:05:11, 2005-08-27 (UTC)


I think we should delete the list of distribution centers. It's incomplete, messy, and doesn't seem (to me) to serve any encyclopedic purpose. If no one objects, I'm going to go ahead and do it. —Cleared as filed. 22:25, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Seconded (fifthed?), although I think either an external link (if there is an adequate one) should be added (and if not, a seperate page). But I really don't think it belongs on the main Netflix article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cylik (talk • contribs) .
I moved them into a separate article, much like what was done with, say, List of Air America Radio affiliates. Hopefully this helps. --badlydrawnjeff 02:15, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
I'd personally like to see it changed to an external link if the information is out there somewhere, since it seems like something that is high-maintenance and will become outdated without constant upkeep. —Cleared as filed. 04:11, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
As does every list on WP. It's not messing up this article anymore, and it's shorter and more concise as a result. --badlydrawnjeff 12:21, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
Well, not really. Many lists don't have trivial information that changes with no warning and no fanfare and will only be maintained by a couple people at most. The ones that do I think should be scrapped right along with this one. Also, the fact that Wikipedia is not an address book presents this list with some problems of whether it should be included. But I agree that the article is better off without it, at least, so that is good enough for me. —Cleared as filed. 13:52, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
We can disagree on this, that's fine. I personally see it as similar to the list of AAR stations, and the only reason few people would maintain it would be due to those people's ambition and nothing else. It can be a well-maintained list if people pitch in, so... --badlydrawnjeff 14:24, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
I don't see a reason to delete the list, but feel free to nominate it for AfD if you disagree, Cleared. Rhobite 16:17, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, it appears that the deletionist forces won out and the list got deleted, regardless of other list precedents. Are we against re-adding the information here, or is the information simply not good enough for the article? --badlydrawnjeff 03:32, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I didn't have anything to do with the AFD, but I still think the information is not good enough for the article (and if the AFD folks did, they would have voted merge). Wikipedia isn't a directory. —Cleared as filed. 00:25, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
The list was harmless enough, but it's true that it's not the type of material that Wikipedia typically publishes. I would say let's not put it back into this article. We can link to external sites which track the distribution centers if we want. Rhobite 00:43, 4 January 2006 (UTC)


I do feel like the list of distribution centers would be helpful to have in the article. It gives an idea to users of how far their discs usually have to travel and an idea of the size of Netflix. If the information was presented in a tabular manner similar to how David Oberst did above it would be a great addition. PaulC/T+ 17:41, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I think it would be enough to mention how many there are and how many states they're in — that would give readers an idea of far the discs have to travel without being unnecessarily and pointlessly detailed. Even a table format would take up a great deal of space, more than the rest of the article, and Wikipedia isn't a directory. —Cleared as filed. 19:17, 9 February 2006 (UTC)


From WP:NOT 1.7...
Genealogical entries, or phonebook entries. Biography articles should only be for people with some sort of fame, achievement, or perhaps notoriety. One measure of achievement is whether someone has been featured in several external sources (on or off-line). Minor characters may be mentioned within other articles (e.g. Ronald Gay in Persecution of gays, lesbians, bisexuals, and the transgendered). See m:Wikipeople for a proposed genealogical/biographical dictionary project.
Directories, directory entries, or a resource for conducting business. For example, an article on a radio station generally shouldn't list upcoming events, current promotions, phone numbers, etc. (although mention of major events or promotions may be acceptable). Furthermore, the Talk pages associated with an article are for talking about the article, not for conducting the business of the topic of the article.
And WP:NOT 1.1
Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. This means that there is no practical limit to the number of topics we can cover other than verifiability and the other points presented on this page.
There is a kind of feasible limit for individual article sizes that depends on page download size for our dialup readers and readability considerations for everybody (see Wikipedia:article size). After a point, splitting an article into separate articles and leaving adequate summaries is a natural part of growth for a topic (see Wikipedia:Summary style). But for topics that are covered by print encyclopedias only in short, static articles, the fact that Wikipedia is not paper allows us to give more thorough treatments, include many relevant links, be more timely, etc.
Adding the list of distribution centers, in table format, may be longer than the actual article, but so what? As long as it adds to the direct content of the article-which is about netflix the company, including their operations-should be included as long as it can be verified. Would you really consider that list, which presents a good amount of information to the reader, a directory? (Read that page to see if the list really fits the description... because I don't think it does.) PaulC/T+ 18:05, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Just because information is verifiable doesn't mean it adds value to the article. On the air traffic control page, we could add a list of every air traffic control facility in the world. Sure, the information would be true and verifiable. But that doesn't mean that it's useful or does anything more than clutter up the article. Whatever point we're trying to get across to the reader, we can do without actually listing every city that has a distribution center. —Cleared as filed. 14:05, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

My opinion of NetFlix

It makes sense to link to Netflix's page on an article about them. Also, linking to the settlement adds an authorative backing to facts mentioned in the article, so it's valid as well.

Does anyone think that manuel's link is a good addition? It's biased, which is not indicated in the link, and it's more like a blog than anything, which doesn't add an authorative or encyclopedic value to Wikipedia. It doesn't really fall in line with the When should I link externally guidelines, and if everyone starts adding links like this, the article will once again become a huge link repository like it was earlier.

Of course, those are guidelines, not necessarily rules. I find myself against that and similar links, where someone else seems to favor it and re-adds it periodically. Politics or possible agendas aside, what does everyone here think about that particular link's worthiness? --Cylik 17:03, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm 99% certain that the continued addition of the link, probably by Manuel itself, is a POV push regarding the vocal minority of unhappy Netflix users who consider themselves "throttled." There are plenty of more objective blogs that could be linked for a third party look at Netflix before this one is. --badlydrawnjeff 17:17, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
I totally disagree with this. The article is relevant, and frankly has some very credible merit to it. Your "99% certainty" is nothing more than a groundless assumption based on absolutely no data whatsoever. In fact, it is frankly more biased and flawed than the position and comments taken by Manuel. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.4.234.131 (talk • contribs) 23:23, 16 February 2006.
I am normally a big spam fighter here but I'm not sure that there's anything wrong with this link.. It is in the top 10 Google results when searching for "Netflix" and it does list some common complaints about the service. Also, people don't just "consider" themselves throttled, they are throttled. It's right there in the Netflix terms of service. I'm not saying that their complaints are justified, but Netflix does admit to the practice. Rhobite 04:49, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
There are two camps regarding "Throttling," the ones who now think that the shipping next day thing is what constitutes it (which is a bit of revisionism on their parts if you read the history of people's ideas of throttling), and the ones who think that Netflix specifically hesitates to check in people's movies in an attempt to keep them from renting more (i.e., Netflix has a ceiling for people, and if they get a movie back on Tuesday, they'll wait until Thursday to check it in so you can't actually get a new movie). It's unsourced, unverifiable POV pushing, and the TOS part that you refer to isn't the "classic" definition of throttling, nor does it really describe "throttling" in any real way. I'd invite you to check out the netflix_operations_discuss group on Yahoogroups to see for yourself how the ongoing claim has been evolving and moving around. --badlydrawnjeff 12:27, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
I simply observe that throttling is already mentioned in the article with the NetFlix terms of use referenced. It could be expanded upon to note the differing perceptions, though. As for the link, I see no facts in it that aren't in the article already; just someone's personal opinion of Netflix. There are plenty of opinions out there, and I think it's made clearly in the WP:NOT that they don't belong. --Cylik 14:52, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
I will oppose any attempts to expand these "differing perceptions" due to a complete lack of sourcing on the issue. People's conspiracies surrounding their believe that Netflix is hesitating in checking in movies has no current basis in fact. --badlydrawnjeff 16:46, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

First of all, the following disclaimer by netflix was only added after they were essentially defeated in a class action lawsuit based on the premise that they were guilt of false advertising at the very least, and unethical business practice in the more likely scenario. More importantly, your refusal to alter your perception is based on an avoidance of facts.

If you would care to have sufficient sourcing to clearly identify "throttling", I will be more than happy to provide it. An example is exactly this: On a 3 DVD plan, all DVDs are returned and marked as received by Netflix. There are 15 DVDs in queue. Of those 15 DVDs, at least 5 are older and very much not in demand. Netflix does not ship a single DVD for 3 (three) business days. To be even more clear, I am not stating that they don't arrive for 3 business days. They don't SHIP for 3 business days. When this scenario is reproduced more than 3 times, I find it statistically impossible to conclude anything other than netflix is attempting to reduce volume by deliberately withholding media. If you can perhaps shed light on a different conclusion, well then I would be more than willing to consider it.

As Rhobite mentioned, the Netflix Terms of Use state: In determining priority for shipping and inventory allocation, we give priority to those members who receive the fewest DVDs through our service. As a result, those subscribers who receive the most movies may experience that (i) the shipment of their next available DVD occurs at least one business day following return of their previously viewed movie (ii) delivery takes longer, as the shipments may not be processed from their local distribution center and (iii) they receive movies lower in their queue more often than our other subscribers. I'm Canadian, but I follow the Netflix Operations discussion group on Yahoo, and from that and other sources it certainly seems as if a certain amount of this "allocation management" (throttling) is done for higher volume customers. I have two problems with the "Manuel" link - the site itself isn't a useful exploration of the "throttling" issue, and whoever keeps putting it back in should engage in a discussion here instead of just reposting the link. David Oberst 17:47, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

The poster putting the "Manuel" link in repeatedly shows no signs of stopping, or consulting here. Anyone with more real-world wiki experience know if this rises to the level of something an admin might block the IP for a day or two, to indicate to the user that they are being inappropriate? David Oberst 19:56, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

One could say that, given the timing of the additions, he's trying to deliberately avoid WP:3RR. That's the only thing I can think of, but I'm not an admin, although I think Rhobite is. --badlydrawnjeff 20:11, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
Well, arbitration is intended for when two parties can't reach a consensus. Here, the problem is one of the two sides won't communicate. I don't know of any official policy when that happens; all the times I've seen it happen the outnumbered anon either grew weary and left or tripped the three reverts rule. My guess is that after a consensus has been reached that opposes the change it can be considered vandalism and dealt with in the same manner, but I'm no admin either. --Cylik 21:52, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
The first step of dispute resolution is to attempt to communicate with the other party. Nobody has tried talking to the user who keeps adding the link: User talk:66.167.59.194 is empty. It could be that the anonymous user doesn't understand your objections to the link. Maybe they don't even know how to use the history function, and they aren't aware that someone is reverting their changes. It is way too early to be discussing arbitration, which is the last step in the dispute resolution process.
I still don't have a problem with including the link, but I appear to be in the minority here. Rhobite 00:20, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
Well, he has been to the talk page before, a quick look at the history reveals a similar IP discussing Netflix's "throttling" as well as other stuff straight from his blog. I can't say with 100% certainty that it's Manuel, but he responded to the use of the name. It's not that he doesn't know the talk page, or doesn't realize it's being reverted, it's all intentional as well as SOP if his typical replies at places like the Hacking Netflix blog are an indicator. --badlydrawnjeff 17:09, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Manuel in the news

Looks like the AP interviewed Manuel Manuel Villanueva, who runs the "My Opinion of NetFlix" site [7]. The AP article is available here [8] and at a number of other news outlets. Due to this new notability, Manuel's page should be linked from this article. We should also add something about the news coverage of throttling. Rhobite 23:18, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Why no link to the original analysis?

Hi everyone. I've tried to stay out of the Netflix world except as a customer since I wrote my dvd-rent-test analysis a long time ago. But I was recently contacted by the LA Times and noticed that it is not linked to in the Netflix Wiki page. I guess I can edit this myself but wanted to understand why it is not linked to, since it helps explain the allocation process to stat junkies. FYI recently updated my errata a bit.

Update: I added a link to my analysis.

-Mike M

Thanks Mike. I agree that your analysis should be linked from this article - I remember reading it a couple years ago and I was fascinated. It was the first I heard about throttling. Wikipedia tries to keep the number of links in an article to a minimum. The goal isn't a high quantity of links, it's a high quality article. This is probably why the site wasn't linked up until now. I think it should be linked, but please don't be surprised or offended if someone removes it. Rhobite 20:24, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Throttling section

I've created a separate section on "throttling" and the Chavez lawsuit. I've also created and linked to a new section in the Online DVD rental article regarding throttling, since Blockbuster, LoveFilm and perhaps others also have similar policies. The new Netflix section includes a link to the San Francisco Superior court site for this case (which includes some of the documentation). The new section could use some polishing and better cross-linking with some of the existing references, and I'd like to find an authoritative Netflix source for the $4 million estimate of the settlement cost. David Oberst 00:05, 28 February 2006 (UTC)