Talk:Avvo

src: images.avvo.com

Video Talk:Avvo

Spam

Is it just me, or does a lot of this page read like Avvo marketing material?--Davidwiz (talk) 03:11, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I've made an initial attempt to remove the promotional language. -- CactusWriter ^(talk) 17:44, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Maps Talk:Avvo

Avvo Pimp

I've removed this entire section and placed it on the talk page (see block quote below). There are multiple problems with it including issues of notability, original research, reliable sources and undue weight. It appears to be a single blog without any notability and is presented in the article as self-referenced original research. Even if some notability can be established, it does not appears to be a reliable source. The section removed is:

More recently, a new controversy has arisen in regards to a feature on the Avvo site that allows consumers to post legal questions and allows attorneys on the Avvo site to post responses. By answering questions, attorneys can earn points that are then credited toward an attorney's Contribution Level. By earning points, and thereby higher status on the "Leaderboard" of contributors, an attorney is able to build a reputation.

The controversy is focused on a certain group of attorneys that appear to post an overwhelming amount of answers to the site. Answers to questions posed in states these attorney's are not licensed in. Answers that are outside of their practice area. And, answers to questions that aren't even answers at all.

Here's a great Avvo Pimp answer: "It looks like you signed something, got screwed, and now want to resort to the "kitchen sink" defense. Will it work? Well, only one way to find out."

The blog Avvo Pimp has coined a new term for this group that post prolifically with disregard to jurisdiction, without rationale, and/or duplicative "piggyback" responses in an attempt to "Pimp" their profile on the Avvo site. The term is "Avvo Pimp".

The site includes weekly awards naming the "Pimp O' the Week" (POTW) as well as "Bitch Slap 0' the Week" (BSOTW). These awards are given to attorneys that have either "Pimped" a large amount of questions, or have taken other attorneys to task for posting either poor/incorrect answers, or for those posting answers in states outside of their jurisdiction.

Unless these issues are resolved, this information should not be re-added to the article. -- CactusWriter ^(talk) 17:44, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

src: s3.amazonaws.com

Avvo Pimp section

There are multiple issues with a section in this article titled Avvo Pimp -- including problems of notability, original research, reliable sources and undue weight. Avvo pimp appears to be a blog without any notability and is presented in the article as self-referenced original research. Even if some notability can be established, it does not appear to be a reliable source. The section has been removed previously with a request for discussion but persistently re-added by an IP. I would like some outside views on viability of this section. -- CactusWriter ^(talk) 19:44, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I feel as if this does fall under reliable sources and undue weight. As such, I agree with the sentiment that the section should be removed. It serves no purpose for the article and does seem to be a form of self-referenced promotion for the blog in order to drive up traffic. Ampersandestet (talk) 04:15, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

src: i.ytimg.com

Return of Avvo Pimp

The Avvo Pimp IP editor (170.11.30.141) has returned. I have undone the edit and added a RS message to the IP talk page. --S. Rich (talk) 23:07, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

S/he's back.--S. Rich (talk) 21:09, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Bar Associations response to Avvo

I believe a more notable element of Avvo is the response by State Bar Associations. It is creating a Streisand effect. Geraldshields11 (talk) 14:34, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

2015 and still spam

The lead on this article looks like it was written by Avvo not by a real Wikipedia volunteer researcher. I suggest that it be replaced by something based on evidence. For one thing, most of the lawyers listed do not have an "Avvo rating." -- Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.148.132.82 (talk) 03:34, 24 September 2015 (UTC)