Talk:1-800 Contacts

Corporate History

I moved lines concerning corporate history to the history section.

This was a publicly traded company during the dotcom bubble. IMHO, the article should include the historic NASDAQ symbol CTAC. It was one of the few dot-coms that turned a profit. Since going private, the company seems to have become a financial football, moving from leveraged buyout firm to leveraged buyout firm. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yintercept (talk • contribs) 20:48, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Rating

I disagree with the rating, and changed it from A to B. This would not pass as a good article. A descriptive section of the company is missing, preferably including details such as company culture, marketing strategy and countries/states they are active in.--DorisHノート 17:23, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I concur. Really, this is a horrible article, and so non-existent we should fear they'll delete it one day, because all it is is a mention of some trivial lawsuit they were in. Any company this size is in 20 lawsuits at a time. It's like having an article called "United States of America" which consists only of a biography of Elvis. --Mrcolj 22:48, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

And it now resembles a what you might get if you gave a schoolkid the question 'write an essay about 1-800 CONTACTS' 83.100.196.239 (talk) 12:17, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality?

I've added a POV tag because the article text does not seem at all neutral, especially in the opening paragraphs; there's language like "compelling proposition" that sounds taken from a prospectus or something. While much of it has the ring of material lifted from a corporate web site, Google searching of the site or the Internet in general for some of the distinctive language didn't turn up any copyvios so far. Nonetheless, it's far from neutral and seems incredibly booster-ish.Lawikitejana (talk) 00:13, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, this is clearly corporate boilerplate. Article is not very good, not very helpful. Just an ad, which makes me immediately suspicious of this company, since they've obviously gone to the trouble of editing their entry to distort their image.~~

Someone restored a large section of the ad, I brought it back to the clipped version. Keep an eye on this page. klosterdev (talk) 07:18, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I saw this article over on the list of articles currently having NPOV disputes. I read the article before reading anything in the talkpage. This does not seem to be an issue of POV, but would rather fall under the policies against ads. I can't recall off the top of my head what the link would be for that policy, but as far as POV goes, the article is legit and I am taking the tag off.D^rew S^mith 10:56, 5 May 2009 (UTC)