Talk:Woot/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Past Bag-O-Crap Dates

Do we really need to list all the Bags-O-Crap? From what I can see, the latest (Feb 10, 2006) BOC was number nine. (And can the irellevant comments above be removed, or do we just leave them alone?) Jachim69 05:12, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the past BOC dates. I don't think it adds anything to the article to add a list of trivia to it. Jachim69 19:31, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Any chance someone could at least list them here? Maybe those of us looking to get a jump on BOCs could find a pattern. --MewtwoStruckBack 05:02, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Past Bag O' Crap dates

Yes, here you go. -- Reinyday, 16:04, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

• Wednesday, July 12, 2006: Random Crap
• Friday, June 9, 2006: (Part of Woot Off) Random Crap
• Friday, June 2, 2006: Random Crap
• Thursday, February 16, 2006: (Part of Woot Off) Random Crap
• Friday, February 10, 2006: Random Crap
• Sunday, December 25, 2005: Random Crap
• Friday, November 18, 2005: Random Crap
• Friday, November 4, 2005: Random Crap
• Monday, July 18, 2005: Random Crap

also:

• Monday, March 6, 2006: InFocus 61” DLP Ultra-Thin HDTV with Random Crap
• Friday, February 17, 2006: Random Crap: 2006 Calendar Edition v.2

competitors

People often add competitors and subsequent editors remove them. In case they are of interest, I list them below. -- Reinyday, 22:19, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

• Yugster
• Daily Steals —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.114.222.215 (talk) 19:10, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
• MidnightBox
• Steep and Cheap
• GoingToday
• MacZOT!
• Bits du Jour
• Shnoop
• Fruper
• Rush41
• and SnapGone, Splooze, DailyZort, dailydeal, brandlet, and OneDealOneDay (all out of business)

Rush41 and brandlet seem to still be up and running. Pdinc 07:10, 20 October 2006 (UTC) Splooze seems to be up an running as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.106.229.61 (talk) 13:59, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps "similar sites" instead of "competitors"? Jachim69 22:37, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I added a line about companies using a similar business model 69.142.21.24 09:22, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for all the quality edits. I've been pondering the BOC/Random Crap changes for a couple of days now. Please consider creating an account. From a quick glance it looks like you made a fair number of edits, and an even quicker glance showed that they look very good. Jachim 18:46, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks... I'll probably make an account soon, but I have always preferred to edit anonymously as my vote against the proposed movement to restrict edits to account holders, which will vastly hurt the Wikipedia. Anyway I think the interest in the woot off is really helping this article . 69.142.21.24 22:04, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Competitors Revisited

Someone again added links to competitors and I reverted to a previous version. Because the success rate of woot spinoffs seems to be less than 50% over a few months, I don't feel comfortable referring people to fly-by-night companies that aren't even notable enough to have their own Wikipedia entries. If we were to link to woot-inspired sites, however, they should be limited to those that have survived long enough to be reliable, namely steepandcheap.com and goingtoday.com, who both have parent companies. Even then, however, it reeks of advertising. Google's article doesn't link to Google-inspired sites and neither does eBay.

Already, we've mentioned some businesses in "Related services and applications" and that should be enough if not too much. If that list were to be thorough and kept up-to-date, we'd have 12 entries with "(out of business)" following their names, a few survivors, and a few possibly fraudulent upstarts.

What does everyone else think? --Trypsin 02:55, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. The section now shows 5 out-of-business imitators and 4 that are still around, but any new ones anyone adds immediately get removed. Either take them all out, or leave them all in, or take out the ones that have shut down, but leaving in the original group of competitors/imitators and removing additions seems completely arbitrary. Some of the new sites have been live over 2 months and don't necessarily compete with woot!; their content is entirely different, only the approach is the same. Readers might like to see other 'one deal a day' sites. If not, take the whole section out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.42.141.234 (talk • contribs)

I think a good compromise is to list them by name and not URL, and don't link to them in the article. This way the reader/consumer would at the very least have to figure out the company's URL, and at least the information is there. So I say list new companies by name only. Pepeeg 20:15, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

• I am removing the following from the article: snapgone (out of business), 1deal1day (out of business), dailydeal (out of business), brandlet (out of business), and Splooze (out of business). I am adding in two other existing competitors. I don't think it helps to list out of business companies. -- Reinyday, 05:46, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

The "One deal a day" page is a better place to discuss competitors. Geo8rge 00:45, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Mystery Brand

The article states that the "Mystery Brand" sales are organized so that the specific brand of the product will vary from purchase to purchase, but are you sure they don't do that just to avoid legal/branding issues?

It seems like they usually do the "Mystery Brand" schtick when they're selling Dell speakers, but Dell is commonly very snippy with allowing resellers to use their name for sales (because they aren't a retail sales company), so woot would be covering their bases by just calling them "Mystery Brand" and clearly showing a picture of Dell speakers.

If anyone has any documentation either way, I'd like to see it.

-Asriel 05:29, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I have never heard of anyone getting anything but the Dell speakers in the mystery brand woot, but that's only anecdotal evidence. I tend to agree that it is a snip at Dell for their branding issues. 69.142.21.24 09:23, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

In fact the blog entry at the beginning of this weekend's woot off pokes fun at that... they mention it isn't *that* much of a mystery and had "Dude, you're getting speakers!" in the feature list. User: Chad Page 00:27, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Look or search for Mystery Brand Speaker Set on Woot's site. The Mystery Brand set would usually be identified as a set of speakers but the product image would usually be a normal everyday box. The Set last sold to begin the August 17-18th 2006 Woot-off!208.107.168.154 04:47, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

well, acctually, recently(during the woot-off today and for a whole day a few days ago) there was a monitor that was "debranded" and kept being said it was by a "famous maker". that part is true. this part is just a side speculation. im pretty sure it was an hp monitor. i mean, it was for sale while an hp computer was forsale on sellout, it was grayed out in the image on sellout(often meaning that it is someting that goes w/ it but is seperate on woot) and vic-versa w/ the computer on woot being gray. anyway, it also looked like an hp monitor. anyways, i have my doubts it for them to be able to sell the stuff. if dell had the power to stop them they woulda stopped alot of resale places.71.145.186.219 (talk) 04:13, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Stats

I don't understand the need to put how many users have "poop" in their name, on an encyclopedia. Some of the other stats I can understand having. But maybe just listing the stats with a date in parentheses at the end instead of their own sub-sections. As it is, it doesn't look very encyclopedic. But I'll wait for other comments before I make any changes. 68.71.227.128 00:52, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

• I removed the unencyclopedic stat, but I really like the way the other stats are laid out, and I would recommend against changing the format. -- Reinyday, 17:47, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

September 2005 - Why is this category even here? Who cares about Woot's statistics from some random month two years ago? That data is completely irrelevant now. Sbrobin 20:56, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Original Research

This article seems to have a disproportionate amount of attention focused on identifying trends and picking out facts about how woot works. It's not our place to make conclusions like

Since the next item in the Woot-Off will not be listed till the current item is sold out, posters in Woot's forums occasionally use peer pressure to advocate the purchase of the current item. Often members will boast of buying the current item just to advance the Woot-Off. It should be noted that during Woot-Offs, many forum members deviate from posting an honest critique of the product and instead pump the offering, hoping readers will quickly buy an inferior Woot and advance the Woot-Off to the next listing.

That's analysis and original research. IT should either be cut entirely or cited to a source and rephrased to bare facts. For example, "sourceX has warned that during woot-offs..." or "sourceY has noted..." If it's that big a deal, there should be someone somewhere who has seen it before. Night Gyr 00:25, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

You people who harp on "original research" in every article need to get a clue. Stating common facts isn't original research. If I want to say the sky is blue, I don't need to preface it with who said it. Yes, truly original research doesn't belong in Wikipedia or any encyclopedia, but just the lack of a citation after every statement of fact does not instantly render a passage "original research." 69.142.21.24 07:48, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

The statement criticized has been disputed and is not trivially verifiable using multiple general-reference sources. It should, therefore, be sourced or removed. Robert A.West (Talk) 00:40, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I can easily source it. Give me a few days. 69.142.21.24 07:43, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

You've had "a few days", or, as I like to say it... Nearly a year... Removing... SXT40 07:15, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Source for revenue numbers

Where did the revenue estimate come from? Does anyone have a source? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.173.228.39 (talk • contribs) 15:11, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

The figure in the article was placed there by the original contributor to the article in June 2005. -- Reinyday, 05:09, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

So, Almost a year later, do we have a source for that number? Removing until we do... SXT40 07:17, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Wine Woot

Does anyone know about the wine woot at www.wine.woot.com. I think someone should find out about it and post something! --Bohouse 19:30, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Starter text has been placed in the article. -- Reinyday, 05:01, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Neutrality of Article?

I found this on the Woot website: http://www.woot.com/WhatIsWoot.aspx

Is it possible the link was put there to get people to say nice things about Woot at Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sleepy Sentry (talk • contribs) 00:51, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

• what you're saying makes no sense. Go away. 69.142.21.24 04:50, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

• That is what is referred to as a FAQ or a Frequently Asked Questions page. It exists on most websites and it serves a purpose. That purpose is to explain to visitors to their site what their site actually is. So there is nothing wrong with having that on their website. Thanks [Zach]24.110.161.74 05:29, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

• I think Woot! just wants to refer members to an explanation of the site by a third party.208.107.168.154 04:10, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

People questioning the neutrality of the article should give examples of articles for retailers that are neutral. Why does this read like an ad but Amazon.com or IBM is not? Geo8rge 01:12, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I have also noticed that wikies for religions and non profits mostly read like ads but are never questioned. I am not suggesting that the page for public radio station WNYC be removed, but I do not see why a business should have a different standard. The woot page is factual and does not have any cheer leading64.48.59.111 14:25, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

It's factual insofar that it's about a company, but I don't understand why this company supersedes the other meanings of "woot" which had a meaning before the company existed. --Lizzard 01:36, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

This page was originally Woot (retailer) and W00t was for the slang term. The page for the slang term was deleted in this discussion. This page was then moved to its current position of Woot. Michael Greiner 01:47, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

This article does not read like an encyclopedia article. It is not neutral. It reads like an advertizement. It is quite biased toward the sales of Woot products. Woot has had a very short history and a simplistic sales model--yet the article is much, much longer than the more complicated e-merchant sites such as costco.com or target.com. User:unknown

Neither of those sites have articles. Their parent companies do, but the websites themselves. Also, Target's article is about 4 times larger than woot's. Michael Greiner 00:59, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I do not see how this article is written like an advertisement. Could someone please give examples of how it is? Ahamlinman (talk) 16:29, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

What?

Ok so I just learned today that woot sell things in a unique way at a massive discount... only I don't know what they sell. This wiki doesn't tell me what they have sold and for how rediculously low. Right now woot.com has some sort of plug in house perfume... so they site sells mainly Home and Garden sort of things? They haven't sold plasmas for 30 dollars? Oh never mind, I'm sure if the things sold were worth mentioning they would have been mentioned JayKeaton 14:10, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

What are you talking about? I am lost. 69.142.21.24 07:42, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup

I added a cleanup tag to the article because I think that the article needs cleaning up, especially in regards to WP:NOT in regards to the external links section. Michael Greiner 23:26, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Wootatrocity

In my view, the wootatrocity listed is not a good one, since that did sell within the hour, even if the product did suck ass. You need to find a better one.

Stolen Goods?

I read an article talking about how Woot has been the subject of an investigation pertaining to the sale of stolen video cards. Anyone care to elaborate? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.53.194.145 (talk • contribs)

• Haven't heard that. Link to the article? --Czj 02:48, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

• Like two months ago MSI accused Woot of selling stolen video cards. All I remember is Woot shrugged it off, then made fun of it (made a product condition of "Pilfered, Possibly Pilfered." for an InFocus screen) Item post: [1] Michael Greiner 04:44, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

• Yea your right, the article I had seen was by MSI. The link is as follows, if anyone is interested: http://www.neowin.net/index.php?act=view&id=35196

It turns out that the shipment sold on www.woot.com was likely stolen and supplied to Woot, unbeknownst to them. A few individuals (not affiliated with Woot) were arrested and both Woot and MSI acknowledged that the items sold were likely from that stolen shipment. No charges were filed against Woot (as they didn't knowingly sell stolen goods or have reason to believe that they were indeed stolen) and MSI dropped any allegations of wrongdoing on Woot.com's part. MSI had previously stated that no warranty support would be provided for said cards, and Woot automatically extended the warranty on them to 2 years, provided by Woot itself; since there are no replacement cards available, any returns would be refunded and not replaced. 71.57.52.253 06:14, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Speedy Delete?

What's this? This page has been around since Oct 2005, and now all of a sudden a brand new editor with no contrib history is marking it for Speedy? A little fishy if you ask me. How about we talk about what the article might need first? NipokNek 21:28, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe this article meets the criteria. Pages which exclusively promote a company, product, group, service or person and which would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Note that simply having a company, product, group or service as its subject does not qualify an article for this criterion. NipokNek 21:41, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I marked the page as requiring ad cleanup, but I agree it's not speedy material. It does have some promotional tone to it, however. Seraphimblade 22:04, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I can see someone calling for an AfD, but I think a speedy is uncalled for. NipokNek 22:11, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I just removed it, it was a BS call. The tag clearly says If this page does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion, or you intend to fix it, please remove this notice - so if somebody has a beef, it can be AfD'd. — RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib} 22:44, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

This article is an advertisement. The defensive and unapologetic posturing of it's posters assures me of their opportunist, profiteering mindset. 69.235.89.138 19:06, 3 February 2007 (UTC)pbergonzi

If you truly feel this way, feel free to submit it for AfD. NipokNek 12:15, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Before you start slinging the mud, be big enough to register and get a wikipedia username. Nodekeeper 21:44, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Brave Woman

After digging around in some forum archives, it seems that I have documented a little more about the history of Brave Woman. The article currently claims she “originally appeared in conjunction with the sale of the "Ab Tilt Abdominal Exerciser with Backrest"”. This is only partially true. The first mention of Brave Woman I can find is during the Oct 22, 2004 Woot-Off, where if you clicked to enlarge the picture of the item for sale, the result featured Brave Woman. The Woot-Off began with the Ab Tilt Abdominal Exerciser with Backrest and ended with an item tiled "Brave Woman Adventure Kit” (see http://slickdeals.net/forums/showthread.php?t=48541 http://slickdeals.net/forums/showthread.php?t=48541&page=103 http://www.woot.com/Forums/ShowPost.aspx?PostID=323943 and http://www.ocforums.com/archive/index.php/t-337922.html) Flutefreek 23:08, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Woot Forums

It seems to me that the whole paragraph labeled "Woot Forums" is irrelevent to the purpose of the article. --67.177.39.202 22:45, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

The woot forums are part of the model. In the past sellers would not tolerate people flaming their products, woot encourages it. The forums are actually important to their business model and are the best part of the site. The forum posters might also be considered unpaid tech support. Geo8rge 00:55, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Remove Ad Tag

Any objections to removing the Advertisement tag? My rational: 1. The article is objective and well written 2. Woot is becoming an increasingly significant company 3. I see no language that suggests a bias Pcbene 20:32, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem with it. Michael Greiner 21:35, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I think I'll take it down tentatively and see if anyone objects. Pcbene 02:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I've replaced with a standard cleanup tag. It does look less promotional now, but there's still a pretty excessive level of detail-it's probably alright to have a synopsis of their unique auction style, but a blow-by-blow seems a bit much. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 02:56, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Looks like the ad tag is back, but my reading of the article seems fairly balanced. Any objection to removing it (again)? Ghoti (talk) 18:11, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm removing this ad tag. Nobody has objected since September, so maybe removing it will stir any applicable dissent. Foofish (talk) 01:00, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

The advert tag is back again, added by someone without a username. Seeing as most edits since the last tag was removed 2 months ago were reverted anyway, any complaints about removing the advert tag again? Garand70 (talk) 16:59, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Explaination?

I'd like to know what this edit is about. I don't see any discussion on the talk page about it; why was this "fixing links"? Anyone have some insight? Ironiridis 19:55, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

• "Fixing links" wasn't the best edit summary but still applies, I guess. About two months ago, the article was tagged for Speedy Deletion with the reasonings of external linkspam and too much advertising for the company. Almost all external links were removed. The article has had external link problems for months (look through the edit historys back into last year) I removed a link to a wootoff/item checker, as had been done countless times before.(Again check edit history) I added a link to a Woot wiki, which includes a list of checkers, with the hope that the links would stop being added. (And by the looks of it, it worked) I don't really understand your concern over the edit and how you thought it was bias on my part, but there's my rationale. It was a noncontroversial edit at the time, prompting no talk page discussion, and was on the edge of being WP:BOLD. Michael Greiner 20:51, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I was just curious, since I wasn't aware of your editing history. It looked like you were replacing one (presumably legitimate) link with another. I actually read your explanation a couple days ago, and wasn't prompted to respond. You explained yourself well. Sorry for that. Ironiridis 16:25, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

why cant i correct an error?

What error have you been trying to correct? Michael Greiner 23:55, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Woot stands for "Wow Loot".

Do you have a Reliable source. Michael Greiner 00:09, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

http://www.woot.com/Forums/ViewPost.aspx?PostID=299664&PageIndex=1&ReplyCount=74#post299814

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=woot - reference 3

Forums and UD are definitely not reliable sources. Please read WP:RS (and sign your talk posts). --Michael Greiner 00:37, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Old English

Woot also means Know in Old English. I wonder how to add this. [2] --SurDin 10:21, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Woot not w00t

The company is called Woot not w00t, but there are several references to the company calling it w00t. This should be changed, no? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.21.179.135 (talk) 14:00, August 23, 2007 (UTC)

Just did. Forgot to sign in, however...I used 72.205.9.224. Cymbalta 05:54, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Woot not bought by Yahoo...

See this posting by Snapster- Woot Staff- on the message boards....

http://www.woot.com/Forums/ViewPost.aspx?PostID=1553746&PageIndex=1&ReplyCount=134#post1553808

Cymbalta 05:45, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

woot meaning

Woot is an acronym for "want one of those". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bunky12 (talk • contribs) 18:11, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Why was new info reverted?

I recently made two edits to the Woot entry that were reverted. One change pointed out that, in spite of all claims to the contrary, Woot really does provide excellent customer service. Another change pointed out that there is a new service associated with Woot called "Woot VIP". I also made some other minor changes, can't recall what they were. So why would these be reverted? I thought reverting was to eliminate vandalism or inaccuracies. Who is the demagogue deciding what info people should know about this retailer. Woot has a "mystique" that can be tricky for new users, why not let Wiki be the place where you get honest info, not corporate marketing hype. With all the other Woot services getting detailed coverage in Wiki but the secret VIP info being reverted, it looks to me like Woot had taken control of Wikipedia! Efris 18:48, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I am not the one who reverted your edits, but I suspect that they were reverted because neither of them were verified by reliable sources. Wikipedia has a policy that all statements in articles must be verifiable. The first edit, about the friends and family thing, probably would constitute original research since it is something that you know about, not by reading about it, etc. The second, would probably also be "OR," as well as non-neutral because you are representing an opinion you have about their service, instead of discussing things non-neutral, as you would by, say, mentioning a newspaper article or online review that praised the customer service. I suggest you read the links that I have included here. If you have any more questions, feel free to contact me. -Seidenstud 19:24, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Clean-Up

The original article is clearly in violation of so many rules, it was in dire need of clean-up or deletion. Instead of deleting the article it is my hope that we can simply keep it clean. The article must remain neutral and does not need to detail all aspects of the company's sales strategy. Most of the contributions were made by a paid public relations consultant who should have known better. Keep it clean guys! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aleverington (talk • contribs) 02:05, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I am about to revert your blatant page blanking. The entire page doesn't have to go. It goes into a lot of detail but shouldn't be expunged of everything. A list of competitors is just spam for them and should not be added. Cleaning up should be done bit by bit, not by wrecking ball. Also, can you prove that a PR consultant wrote this? Next time, new topic go at the end of a page and sign your posts. --Michael Greiner 03:38, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a Woot FAQ

Please post the minutiae of Woot at woot.wikia.com, the Woot blog, or the Woot forum. This article is not the place to document every little thing that this company does. I'm a happy Woot customer myself but this article has been overrun by obsessed Wooters. White 720 (talk) 07:09, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

References

During some copyediting, I moved all the external links in the "References" subsection into and underneath the reference citations in the "References" section for two reasons. First, it's confusing to have two "References" sections, and can cause problems when reviewing article histories. Second, any material that it used as a specific reference for statements in the text should have a proper footnote associated with it that generates a proper reference citation. Otherwise it's just for further reading, and really does belong in the "External links" section.

I would have cleaned up these references much more, but got bogged down in the fact that Woot, for some reason, is currently offline. I invite other editors of this article to continue the work when it comes back up, if I don't beat them to it. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 06:30, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I removed many external links from article: in the external link section, inline with the text, and hiding as "references". This is one of the more blatant (and poorly written) promotional articles I've read in Wiki.

I also removed a great deal of promotional material, however about 2/3rds of the existing material should be deleted. I ran out of patience.

Note (I also ran out of patience here) that at least one recent edit, inappropriately adding an external link to a Twitter account [3], was done by an editor whose page reads that they are a sockpuppet. What a mess. Piano non troppo (talk) 07:52, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Matthew Shultz

I removed this:

Matthew Shultz records a daily podcast that is published on Woot's main site. This podcast briefly describes the item up for sale and includes a humorous song or skit.

That is nothing but an blantant advert for the guy's website. It has nothing to do with WOOT. It's about him talking about WOOT. Should we mention every person who talks about Woot. 99.180.246.87 (talk) 08:01, 17 June 2009 (UTC)mabel

Matthew writes the podcasts for Woot. It's an official feature of the site. White 720 (talk) 18:59, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

For what it's worth I came here specifically to find out what the guy's name was. Dabizi (talk) 21:46, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

significate of woot

woot is word on canada. that is as says WOW in a form. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.160.251.164 (talk) 02:36, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Criticisms and Complains section

I removed the section entirely because the first section is just a single linked statement to a random review page and the second sentence is entirely unsourced so despite the need to show any legitimate criticisms and complaints, especially since there's been previous issues with the NPOVness and tone of this article, the section was a joke and shouldn't exist as it did in my opinion. Cat-five - talk 02:59, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Some copyedit and pruning

I've copyedited the article to make it a bit more encyclopaedic. I've also cut some excessive information - detail is well and fine, but this is not a Woot FAQ, and we don't need to report every detail and date of every special deal. Some things that sounded like hearsay ("users report") were pruned, too as failing WP:V. Averell (talk) 22:28, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Amazon

I think more should be said about amazon buying woot: http://www.woot.com/Blog/ViewEntry.aspx?Id=13390 http://dealbook.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/07/02/we-got-acquired-by-amazon-woots-deal-video/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dwayneam (talk • contribs) 15:24, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Please add different WOOT entry for the (Usenix) Workshop On Offensive Technologies

That's a significant academic workshop, see: http://www.usenix.org/events/woot10/

I can contrib some text for it, of course.

AmirHerzberg (talk) 08:04, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Click Workshop On Offensive Technologies, click "Start the Workshop On Offensive Technologies article," and have at it! White 720 (talk) 18:24, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Suggested change to Bag of Crap references

As of Q4 2012, Woot has discontinued offering "Bags of Crap". I don't have a citation, there was no official press release about it; there simply hasn't been one in about six months (since August 2012). Perhaps this page should be updated to reflect that.

Crates (talk) 16:34, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Woot didn't stop doing the Bag of Crap, they just changed it a little. Now when they do it, instead of it just being added as an item during a wootoff (and flooding their servers as people hammer the connection to try and get it), they now have it as a bit of a scavenger hunt. Clues are posted on facebook, in the blogposts, etc. Basically, they do it in a way so only the most avid wooters are in the know. I remember there being one for April's wootoff. Wasn't really around to see if the May or June ones had one, but pretty sure they did.

Hellmark (talk) 19:43, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Woot Customer/Product Support

Right after the introductory paragraph, there's a solitary line that states:

"Woot does not provide any product support after a customer purchase, and does not accept returns unless the item is defective."

This line was added at 11:42, 25 April 2013‎ by user 98.210.60.236 - an IP with multitude of edits. I haven't read anything from that user that arouses suspicion.

I looked into Woot's About section as it relates to customer service:

Will I receive customer support like I'm used to? Not quite. If you buy something you don't end up liking or you have what marketing people call "buyer's remorse," sell it on Craigslist or at a garage sale. It's likely you'll make money doing this and save everyone a hassle. If the item doesn't work, first, find out what you're doing wrong. Yes, we know you think the item is bad, but it's probably your fault. Google your problem, or come back to that product discussion in our community and ask other people if they know. Try to call the manufacturer and ask if they know. If you give up and must return it to us, then follow on to the next FAQ entry.

I was initially going to delete the line about customer service or tag it with "citation needed". This is because the line smacked of a disappointing customer experience and because the line seemed to be placed in an inappropriate spot. But from Woot's FAQ, it seems that the 25 April edit is at least partially correct.

Should the line stay as-is? Does it need to be edited? Should it be moved to a different part of the article? Should it be deleted altogether? Anomaly (talk) 15:02, 14 August 2013 (UTC)