Experts Exchange was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones Date Process Result February 15, 2007 Articles for deletion Kept February 29, 2008 Good article nominee Not listed June 4, 2019 Articles for deletion Kept
Current status: Former good article nominee

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Websites: Computing Low‑importance This article is part of WikiProject Websites, an attempt to create and link together articles about the major websites on the web. To participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.WebsitesWikipedia:WikiProject WebsitesTemplate:WikiProject WebsitesWebsites Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Computing. Computing Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

9/5/2009

https://secure.experts-exchange.com/lockedLimitedMember.jsp

"Site access is now limited to Premium Service Members. Convert your account in just minutes and stay connected to the #1 resource for solving technology problems on the web."

================================

Additionally as a premium paying member I was denied the right to post a new question because I had 1 abandoned question that was unanswered and as such left open. After hours and hours of web searching for a solution I turned to Experts Exchange to post a question and after writing the question I found that I could only post it in one category called "Community Support - Expert Input". All I can say was I was even more frustrated than I was before I started the process. I had no idea what was going on, thought it was an update error so I sent a question to their support and was informed that this was the policy. I have since been back and forth with Experts Exchange support and management and they refuse to review their backward policy. A complaint has been filed with the Better Business Bureau and I urge you to do the same. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.252.69.162 (talk) 18:10, 12 April 2012 (UTC) This site doesn't deeserve a Canadian penny. The exerpts are tyros. In thirty days, not one of the so-called experts could answer simple question concerning access to Windows online help service. In fact the so-called experts are front-men for selling computer users anti-virus software they probbably don't need. Total ripoff website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quantaman (talk • contribs) 00:32, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"One must be a member of Experts-Exchange to be able to ask questions. As of late 2007, it is also necessary to be a member to view the solutions."

False. I have never signed up or become a member in any way and I can view the solutions from any computer. Find a question, like this one I literally just clicked the first one I found, such as: http://www.experts-exchange.com/OS/Linux/Distributions/Debian/Q_22781274.html

If you click the link mentioned here it actually asks you to be a member!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.233.200.92 (talk) 03:40, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The question is, "How do I change my hostname in Debian?" The answer is, "owensleftfoot: Change /etc/hostname and run /etc/init.d/hostname.sh start to make the change active Accepted Solution"

It even shows the assisted solution.

Found by scrolling down the page, all the way to the bottom, or by pressing the End button on your keyboard. I have been using experts-exchange just like many other sites on google for years now, and have never had to sign up for any solutions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.93.72.3 (talk) 21:00, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This used to work for me, but currently viewing the source of your link shows no mention of that answer, and the bottom of the rendered page is empty. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.241.210.85 (talk) 18:12, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the system there checks for the referrer. If you come from a search engine (like Google, for example), you can jump to the very bottom of the page to view answers. However, if you go there from any other site, then the answers are indeed invisible/inaccessible. 192.73.45.58 (talk) 15:26, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The website also checks if you're singed in, and if so redirects to the payment page even though you come from Google. You have to sign out, go back to Google and click on the link again to see the solution at the bottom of the page. I think that Google has a policy against web pages that are different when they are scanned with their crawler, so they should defenitely remove Experts Exchange from their index. Jan Aagaard (talk) 09:11, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@192.73.45.58 - Perfectly right. Which is why I wrote the important notice in the lead section "Due to a search engine optimization requirement, answers are still displayed at the very bottom of the page[1], and can be freely viewed by visitors that enter the site via a search engine results page." -- Tom Jenkins ^(reply) 10:02, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This may be of your interest as well! huji—TALK 14:04, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why should this link be of interest, while mine isn't :-)Nico5038 (talk) 22:35, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yours could be of interest too, if it could be cited in the article in a neurtral way, and it belonged to a more credible person. huji—TALK 21:53, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have an objection to the following sentence: "Experts-Exchange has more than 2 million solutions now." The reference points to Experts' Exchange own testamonials site, so it's hardly a watertight reference. At best it could be quoted as being "claimed" to have 2 million. Jamyskis Whisper, Contribs 19:29, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is a valid objection. I changed the sentence accordingly. Reference should also be improved as soon as a better reference is found. huji—TALK 11:21, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That whole statement is an advertisement and serves no other purpose. Does Wikipedia keep stats about everything in the world? Try looking for how many problems some newfangled Microsoft Solution Center has solved, within a Wikipedia article. And in the lead section? Surely not. -- Tom Jenkins ^(reply) 11:32, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I object to this: "Experts-Exchange has mostly been among the top 800 visited websites in the first 6 months of 2009, based on Alexa's ranking" Firstly it's current ranking is 988 as of 29 April 2009, secondly the ranking is based on average daily pageviews and visitors over the past 3 months, nothing to do with the 6 months of 2009 that we haven't had yet as of the end of April.

Just because something is there, it doesn't mean it is important enough to be mentioned in a Wikipedia article. For example, there is a user script (mentioned in this article) which allows Google users to remove results from Experts-Exchange in their searches. Since this script was mentioned by (at least) a few other blogs and forums, it was (at least marginally) notable enough to be included in the article. Similarly, there is a PHP script which searches Experts-Exchange for answers to a given question inside Experts-Exchange web site, and imports the answers. It is there, but it doesn't seem notable enough, and is not mentioned on the article.

Same applies for the reverse too. Just because there is another script/weblog/etc on the net which objects EE, it doesn't mean it should be mentioned in the article. We should first see if "others" have shown interest in that script/weblog/etc. If yes (and I mean a big, significant yes which can satisfy others), we can add it; otherwise, we shouldn't.

I hope everyone reads these lines before trying to add/re-add non-notable links to the article. huji—TALK 16:22, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quick note: Experts Exchange was the single most blocked site when Google offered that functionality through Panda. Source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.140.56.178 (talk) 21:44, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The whole article sounds very self-promoting, for example: "Experts-Exchange has been praised as one of the best technical support sites by some of its reviewers.[25][26][27][28] PC Magazine lists Experts-Exchange as one of the top 101 websites. [26]" Just because there are references, doesn't mean they and the information they convey should be included. Number of solutions and number of Alexa hits also sound very commercial-like. Tsk-tsk, expertsexchange. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.248.107.194 (talk) 15:40, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the section on the basis of synthesis. None of the sources actually say what is claimed and most appear to be promotional style reviews, i also removed the stuff based on blogs and amazon.com as not relevant or reliable. --82.38.254.82 (talk) 08:48, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"For example, there is a user script (mentioned in this article) which allows Google users to remove results from Experts-Exchange in their searches." Link is dead.

--85.183.47.159 (talk) 13:03, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This article seems to be heavily biased to me Gbickford (talk) 17:52, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree, it really looks it was written or at least heavily edited by EE staff to minimize criticism of the site.

Experts-Exchange is abusing of cloaking, and that should be mentioned in the page. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloaking —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.37.8.242 (talk) 10:31, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article sounds very self promoting, with no neutral or negative content. ""Experts-Exchange has been praised as one of the best technical support sites by some of its reviewers" This, and all similar content should be removed. I believe this violates the WP:SOAP as advertising. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.67.229.124 (talk) 07:35, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

EE is one of the worst technical sites, considering the information you could get elsewhere and with less hassle. 68.161.91.20 (talk) 16:05, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting how most of the above EE bashers are unsigned... Although I personally agree that the so-called pay-wall should be removed or at least reduced, the claims that EE is cloaking is as of April 2010 untrue and the note that the pay-wall can be bypassed by scrolling down on an answer is still the case. Mplungjan (talk) 08:27, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The paywall is removed only for users visiting from search engines. Going to any solution with no referer (for example, by copy-pasting the link) shows that the paywall is still there. There's another thing, too - would you call hiding the solution so it's technically there (on the bottom of the page), but any casual user will only see the paywall, and won't notice the scrollbar? --HTMLCODER.exe (talk) 14:08, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you can't figure out how to spoof the referer, or for that matter what a scrollbar is and how it works, then you might want to consider employment in a non-IT field. Consider the paywall a minimal competency test. Or just go to StackOverflow instead. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.28.70.16 (talk) 04:16, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Somebody should kill EE once and for all. And who the fuck is Austin Miller and Randy Redberg ?

Why was the criticism section removed? I must say that while it is trivial to work around the paywall, it is unethical to actually link people looking for a quick and free answer from Google to a paywall. And whatever you guys say about the paywall being removed when referred from Google, I have always encountered and worked around it - and god knows how many times I've been hitting their website. It is a particularly disgusting behavior of EE to somehow rank high in Google, and force the user to pay for the content that CAN BE SEEN in the little description text in Google. And I won't even mention EE breaching several if not all of Google's rules on ranked websites - this is just wrong. I suggest the criticism section be reworded and put back into the article. Ye can't hide thy truth. 121.73.17.17 (talk) 02:56, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't seen this criticism section, but one of the first suggestions I got from entering "Experts Exchange" into the Google search bar was "Experts Exchange scam." A search for just "Experts Exchange" will turn up many results expressing disdain and scorn for the site. Personally, I've found a few gems in Experts Exchange, but like all other sites it's full of shit as well. The Code Project's forums is a much better place to find experts. If Google isn't penalizing sites for generating negative sentiments towards it, it should. It's already done it to many businesses that take advantage of negative reviews for publicity. 68.161.91.20 (talk) 16:02, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't seen this article before the Criticism section was removed, but my first reaction to seeing this article was "Why is there no criticism section?" Their SEO practices are borderline to put it kindly, and the way they imply you need to be a paid member when you really don't isn't exactly ethical either. I wouldn't go so far as to describe it as a scam, but I certainly wouldn't trust a site that behaved the way they do.

What is the point in telling people you haven't (been bothered to) view an old version of the article, or a section it used to have? Just Do It. Then you won't need to admit your laziness. 202.159.146.232 (talk) 02:41, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What's the point of replying to a comment from eight years ago? CPColin (talk) 17:30, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Interest disclosure: I am an employee at Experts Exchange, LLC.

I've got two recommendations for this article. The name of the company is "Experts Exchange, LLC." The name of the site is "Experts Exchange." We should remove the hyphen from the name of the article.

Speaking of hyphens, the article says this: "Originally, Experts-Exchange could be reached by visiting expertsexchange.com, but this domain was later abandoned because it was felt that it could be too easily misinterpreted to read as 'Expert Sex Change'." The source given is a Snopes.com article that says this: "Experts Exchange, a programming advice and discussion web site, uses a domain name that might attract queries from prospective patients seeking informed advice about transgender surgery: expertsexchange.com." That source does not say whether or not the hyphen was present in the original domain, nor does it speculate on why the hyphen was added (if it was ever missing in the first place), so it shouldn't be used as a source of that sentence in this article. CPColin (talk) 18:16, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am no longer an EE employee, as of 2017, so I just made the edit myself. CPColin (talk) 16:31, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Snopes article may not cite the source, but the Internet Archive has a copy of the redirect at: https://web.archive.org/web/20040604200137/http://www.expertsexchange.com/ Karsini (talk) 12:05, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Or do you know any method to read answers without paying anything?

I have reported the web site to Google and I ask everyone else to do that. 88.192.39.165 (talk) 21:52, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Under "History":

• paragraph 2 starts with "Experts Exchange went bankrupt in 2001 after venture capitalists moved the company to"
• paragraph 3 starts with "Experts Exchange went bankrupt in 2001.[16] Austin Miller and Randy Redberg took ownership"

Are these separate bankruptcies? Or can they be consolidated?

"Originally, Experts Exchange could formerly be reached" Is there any benefit to the redundancy of packing both "originally" and "formerly" into this sentence? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.217.218.239 (talk) 08:20, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Experts-Exchange. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120420183139/http://blog.edseek.com:80/archives/2007/04/14/experts-exchange-sucks-more-employing-obfuscation-to-force-signup/ to http://blog.edseek.com/archives/2007/04/14/experts-exchange-sucks-more-employing-obfuscation-to-force-signup/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:19, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Should it be "Experts-Exchange" or "Experts Exchange"? The first is used as the title, and the second in the body. --Mortense (talk) 16:43, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It should not have a hyphen. I mentioned the same issue above, in the section that starts with "Article name…." (I am an employee of the company.) CPColin (talk) 06:29, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm no longer an employee, as of 2017, so I'm going to request this. CPColin (talk) 18:12, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Experts-Exchange. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110426152310/http://www.experts-exchange.com/threeMillionSolutions.jsp to http://www.experts-exchange.com/threeMillionSolutions.jsp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121126232939/http://www.coffeepowered.net/2009/02/07/desuckifying-experts-exchange/ to http://www.coffeepowered.net/2009/02/07/desuckifying-experts-exchange/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:22, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Changes were made to make page up to date. Changes were made by someone affiliated with company. Beedee1234 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:21, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone afiliated with the company has a conflict of interest, and should not edit the article. Instead, they should discuss any proposed changes on this ttalk page, and allow impartial editors decide whether to make them. Maproom (talk) 09:04, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The logo needs to be updated on this page, they recently went through a rebrand ---- Cartermyoung (talk) 15:33, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:49, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The logo being used as the primary image for Experts Exchange is an outdated one. It needs to be updated to their logo, the one that is currently used in the top left corner of their homepage: https://go.experts-exchange.com/

Here is a direct link to the file: https://assets.website-files.com/5fff1b1358bb91e4a3cb82ee/61f007fccc78ab06252df575_logo%20primary.svg Masonbrown1296 (talk) 14:52, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The logo being used as the primary image for Experts Exchange is an outdated one. It needs to be updated to their logo, the one that is currently used in the top left corner of their homepage: https://go.experts-exchange.com/ Here is a direct link to the file: https://assets.website-files.com/5fff1b1358bb91e4a3cb82ee/61f007fccc78ab06252df575_logo%20primary.svg

X: Change the logo that is currently being used as the primary image to Y: the one that is currently used in the top left corner of their homepage: https://assets.website-files.com/5fff1b1358bb91e4a3cb82ee/61f007fccc78ab06252df575_logo%20primary.svg Masonbrown1296 (talk) 14:55, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: Please make your request for a new image to be uploaded to Files For Upload. Once the file has been properly uploaded, feel free to reactivate this request to have the new image used. Wikipedia does not use images that are hosted externally; the image must be hosted either on Wikimedia Commons (if it has a suitable licence or is otherwise permissible under Commons rules) or on Wikipedia itself if it is a non-free image (as long as it has a fair use rationale). Melmann 20:06, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]