Talk:PC World (retailer)

June 2011 Review of Content of Article

---

Some of the comments regarding Extended Warranties etc. Appear to not be based on fact. There are extreme key differences between the services PC World (WhateverHappens) Etc. Offer and Insurance and Extended Warranties. Instead of editing, I thought a Discussion was more appropiate. Alot of the Criticisms and Content is Myth and Outdated. Can we work as a team to ensure this article is up to date and 100% accurate. snakenath 19:29, 7 June 2011(UTC)

---

Updated PC City Spain Stores Information to reflect the DSG Retail Limited / Dixons Retail PLC withdrawal from Spanish Market snakenath 19:54, 7 June 2011(UTC)

---

---

---

---

---

---

Untitled

Is this NPOV? Sounds like a sales pitch.

- yeah, this article needs some work, any notion of the reader has of "experienced specialists" working in PC World from reading this article is mis-placed ;) Joolz 08:28, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Yep, it's very much a marketing pitch at the moment. I'm working on it. --bodnotbod 17:34, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

• How about now? Mojo-chan 20:17, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

edit

---

Changed the content of critisms because it is unfair to say staff lack knowledge needed as most staff members in PC World are very computer literate, its only been a few temp's that we've had problems with

Also took off the old extended warranty information we used to do, which i agree was a waste of money but the new revamped monthly after sales service is much better

Maybe it is, but that's a matter of opinion, and the perception (and reality) that your old warranties were overpriced shouldn't be removed from the article unless things have demonstrably changed over a period of time.

and you can cancel it anytime and it is very useful for not computer literate customers.

Also sales staff don't pursuade customers to buy expensive machines, we look for machines that will be ideal for each customer in order to suit there needs,

You're saying that there *isn't* a strong sales culture in DSG stores?

and i think legal action could be taken against the old comments i changed as it is false information! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.67.226.119 (talk • contribs) .

You're protecting us against legal action by you or your employers? How kind. Fourohfour 19:53, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

You seem to be a PC World empolyee, which makes it pretty hard for you to have a neutral point of view. Also, the fact is that much of what you object to it true. I went for a job interview (forced to by the Job Centre even though I have a degree!) and it was all about sales. The guy didn't care if I new anything about PCs or not, all he cared about was if I /sounded/ like I knew and could get people to buy the most expensive stuff. Being highly computer literate, I always find staff to be fairly clueless.

Also, the article should mention dodgy tactics such as selling some things at a very low price, but accessories at a very high price. An example would be printers. £30 for a printer but £15 for a USB cable! Mojo-chan 19:21, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

There is an issue with this article and that is because PC World does not offer any such extended warranty service but a care and support package which includes extras such as accidental damage. To refer to it as a an Extended Warranty is misleading.

To refer to it as a "Care and Support" package is misleading, because it is in fact an extended warranty with a bit of insurance tacked on. It's just attempt to get away from the phrase extended warranty by PC World's marketing department, because it has such negative connotations. A bit like when Sellafield changed it's name. It is what it is. Mojo-chan 11:19, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Incorrect - a Extended Warranty is exactly what it says on the box, PC Performance Care and Support Package offers more than an Extended Warranty, such as Data Recovery, Accidental Damage and a free Healthcheck each year. You have it for as long or little as you need it as it's Pay as You Go, a Extended Warranty is a set amount of time - eg. You buy a 3 year plan or such like, PC World's Care and Support is unlimited and is only as long as you want it, you cancel the direct debit if you don't want it.

I come back to my conclusion that it is therefore misleading for Wikipedia to refer to it as a Extended Warranty. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.249.220.239 (talk • contribs).

I wasn't aware that there was any rigid official definition of an extended warranty that said it had to be of a fixed length. Fourohfour 20:14, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Just because it includes some extras does not change the fact that it is still an extended warranty. My credit card gives me insurance on things I buy and various other extras, but it's still a credit card. Also, the term "PC Performance Care and Support Package" is full of weasle words - it's marketing speak. Wikipedia is not a marketing platform for PC World. Mojo-chan 10:46, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

wireless networking

Is there a source for the complaints that arose due to misadvertising the benefits of wireless networking? As I recall the commercial, it was during a section on Intel Centrino technology.

Dead link

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

• http://froogle.google.co.uk/froogle/merchratings?store=pcworld_uk&q=Hitachi+Deskstar+400gb+internal
  • In PC World (retailer) on Mon Jul 17 14:22:00 2006, 404 Not Found
  • In PC World (retailer) on Thu Jul 27 00:27:21 2006, 404 Not Found

Gary Glitter

The Gary Glitter repair *did* necessitate enter the folder on the desktop where his pictures were stored. I'd suggest a removal or edit of this section as it contains nothing more than speculation and half-remembered facts. If you intend on keeping it, maybe you should link to the BBC news article.

---

maru (talk) contribs 04:27, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay, please add the link and a reference showing that it was necessary. Mojo-chan 22:06, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

• • I'd like to but I can't. Details about the nature of the work carried out are not in the public domain, and I only know about the more in-depth details through second-hand hearsay. Feel free to check the IP this comment was posted from if you're curious about where I got the information from.

If you can't offer a reference, and even admit it's second hand hearsay, I'm afraid it doesn't make the cut. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mojo-chan (talk • contribs) .

Then considering that there is no way of justifying the speculation in this section of the PC World article, it should also be removed. If Wikipedia is factual, the only the fact that Garry Glitter was arrested after the discovery of child pornography upon his computer at PC World should be included in this article, and the speculation on how should not be included. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 164.38.132.100 (talk • contribs) .

It isn`t really speculation as such, it is simply reporting the questions raised at the time. I suppose it is similar to the concerns that people have when they take their car to be repaired. You wouldn`t want the mechanic going through your glove compartment just to see what is there, or taking your car out for a drive just for fun. Similarly, you wouldn`t want people reading all the private documents (often business related) on your PC, or going through your family photos. I`m not saying PC World staff did it, maybe Glitter was stupid and set the pictures as his backdrop or screensaver, but you would imagine that if you knew you had illegal material on your PC you would go to some lengths to hide it, meaning that questions should be raised about the lengths PC World staff would have gone to to find them. Of course, those lengths might only have been to do a search for *.jpg, but why would you do that during a repair unless you were snooping? Mojo-chan 11:12, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

After Sales Service

• Poor after sales service if no insurance/support package is taken, requiring customers to use out-sourced, national rate telephone support for hardware issues or premium rate (£1.00/minute, except for set-up which is 75p/minute) telephone support for software issues.

The telephone support for PC issues within either the manufacturers guarantee, or whilst a PC Performance agreement is valid is provided by PC Service Call, a support company based in Nottingham owned by DSGi. Calls are charged at the National Rate. This line also gives limited advice for problems with other peripherals brought from PC World, though normally you'll be referred to a PC World store.

Whoever wrote this didn't bother sign their name, but I suspect it may be the same person who vandalised the crits section. Please provide links to where you got this information from. I have personally checked the PC World web site and that's where the listed figures come from. As you can see, national rate is mentioned for hardware issues. I have dealth with PC Service Call myself, as they support more than just PC World machines. They are also a separate company. As such, "out-sourced" seems reasonable. Mojo-chan 22:18, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I posted this, but I'm afraid I didn't vandalise the Criticisms section. The information isn't sourced from a website though it probably is available somewhere, just from experience working at PC World. I also wasn't debating calling them out-sourced at all, just pointing out the relationship between the companies, since "out-sourced" is a term people often use to refer to telephone support which is provided from another country, as opposed to just another company.

Okay, thanks for the clarification. I think "out-sourced" is correct, if you check the definition. Please sign your comments with four tilds (~) as it makes it clear which bit you wrote. Mojo-chan 23:16, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd agree that "Out-sourced" is definitely correct, though I think many people have a warped view of the word. On the topic though, do we think it's a good idea to have this work out-sourced to what are now "The Tech Guys" (I should sign up for an account some time soon!) 164.38.32.100 12:35, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I'll add a note about PCSC. Registering is a good idea since other people seem to share your IP, so it's difficult to tell if it's you or someone else making edits. As for the Techguys thing, once details (such as charges, quality of serivce, terms etc) become clear hopefully details will be added (preferably not by DSG employees - this is not an advert!) Is it a good idea? I don't know... if it's the same people doing the in-store repairs it could have major problems. But maybe they will actually get qualified engineers to do it. PC World seems to be aware of it's bad imagine and is trying to do something about it. The real question, I suppose, is if they are really going to make changes, or just try to look like they have changed. Mojo-chan 23:03, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, The Tech Guys is a merger of Mastercare, PC Service Call, and Press F1 stores, so the work they carry out is going to be carry out by Mastercare Engineers, and the phone support probably by the PC Service Call centre employees. As for the level of training they receive, it's generally of a much higher standard than PC World Technical staff, since it's considered to be a more prestigous post, and one with more responsibility. As for the services offered and the associated charges, there are too many to list here, but it doesn't seem to be a great deal that hasn't been seen in a PC World store before (Either at the clinic, or the Business Centre), apart from some of the Home Entertainment installation services. It's interesting that the launch material we're getting is pushing hard that they're going to offer a lot more services in the near future, but that has to be taken with a pinch of salt. So far it seems like a reasonable idea but it remains to see, like you say, how well they execute it. (K-emp 16:50, 10 September 2006 (UTC))

The Tech Guys also includes store technicians, who will share the branding, if not the support / management of the rest of The Tech Guys. From my (in-store) perspective, it looks to be more focused on selling services.

AS THE RIGHT TO THE FREEDOM OF SPEECH - STEER CLEAR OF THE TECH GUYS SERVICE - YOU PAY AND GET NOTHING, KEEP READING (AND I AM STILL WAITING FOR A RESPONSE...)THIS MAY WORK?! I recently took out the tech guys package from PC World and would advise anyone else to avoid it. I have been mis-sold the package (£6.99 in store payment and then £6.99 per month ongoing), in store the sales assistant said it is for 'any' tech questions of difficulties, when I called about an issue the tech guy said its only to get PCs / laptops up and running and not about ongoing questions.

The packaging clearly states it is for any issue, when I repeated this to the tech guy he was really rude, shouting at me down the phone and told me 'if I don't like it....'. I asked to speak to his manager who wasn't any better. I suspect it was a colleague and not really a manager. The tech guy then said he would try to help me, though he had to go to windows help first (well I can do this for free myself).

My call took over an hour and the problem is still not resolved, not even to this day they said they would call me back. This was about 3 weeks ago. I have reported this Currys / PC World by phone to customer services department and after being on hold for 45 minutes, going through the events I was told to email in. I have now sent the same email twice and still had no response so finally one week ago I sent a formal, written letter in the post cancelling my subscription with copies of the email - but still no contact from anyone.

I am being charged for this service, already paying one month and about to pay the next through direct debit and I have got nothing from it, I may as well have thrown the money out the window for all the good I have received from it. No one has made any contact with me and I am paying £6.99 per month, for abuse, no help and no one to turn to.

What is my best course of action now? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.70.234.254 (talk) 15:24, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Recent vandalism

Recently, this article has been vandalised three times, twice in the criticisms section and once at the top. The former two were both by anon users, one of who seems to be affiliated with PC World in some way. I move to place a temporary ban on the latter (164.38.132.100) if restraint is not shown in the future. Mojo-chan 22:20, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

IP (164.38.132.100) would be the DSG Gateway, so it could be anyone accessing from any site connected to the DSG network (Any store, head office, etc.)

Is it possible to set up a ban just on editing this article. He just did it again, and I had to rv. Mojo-chan 23:14, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

RE: Recent Vandalism ---

Yes i 'vanderlised' the critisms section before and noted it above in the 'edit' section - i did this because yes i am a PC World employee and have been for only 6 months and i am proud to be working there.

I disagree with a lot of stereotypical comments and uninformed judgements made on the PC World section but i do agree with the fact that items such as USB cables are heavily priced but its the manufactures themselfs that don't provide them in the boxes, not PC World's choice.

I hate the fact that people come in thinking we are on commission and force them to take PC Performance when we don't, all my customers i tell them the benefeits and sell it using examples of how they would need it.

Yes PCP is very useful and worth taking out, especially when the customers are computer illeturate and need the help, its not like the customers are tied down to PCP either it is pay as you go.

A lot of my customers even ask for it themselves.

I also hate the fact that people say PC World staff are dumb, i agree with it in a lot of cases and i have seen many people being hired just because they have worked in DSG chains before and know nothing about PC's.

I hate working with these people because it brings us other staff who are Microsoft certified down and there should be much better screening processes for applicants to go through, that way we could be paid more an hour, im only on £5.05 a hour and hardly any bonuses - except on margin and customer satisfaction.

Here's my account on PC World:

Pro's:

Wide range of products and decent prices - especially laptops / computers Good support and advice clinic's with very knowledgable staff Good support packages (PCP) and instant replacements Non aggressive staff No commission

Con's:

Not enough staff Some staff (1 in 20) are computer illiturate Not enough stock in store High prices on essensials - ink, cables, disks, etc.. Items unpriced Collect@Store - reserve online and get it cheaper * more info below Not enough instore training given

And hey i have a degree and Microsoft and CompTIA certifications and i know a great deal on PC's and i don't have a bias view on PC World i just have an inside view which is a lot more nuetral than an outsiders view.

Not everyone can know everything and i admit i don't know too much on sound systems but then i just pass them on to other colleagues.

As for heavy sales orientated i have never convinced a customer to spend more than they have to, our sales pitch is to find the right PC for what they use it for and we then go through the specification and say why we feel that need things like 1gb RAM for AutoCAD for an example etc.. we don't get bonuses or commission on sales, we get it for customer satisfaction so every customer we get we have to treat right to make sure we get our bonuses.

Our stores daily targets are 20k, atleast 5k of this is gained through the till during the day so that leaves 15k to be gained through about 8 sales staff so its about 2k each, which is about 5 sales in 9 hours - so why should we encourage customers to pay more, or take out our services?

I think the author and main contributor of this article on PC World website doesn't work in PC World or even DSG so how can their views be nuetral or even fair?

I have a completly 100% fair view on it, and whether or not people want to beleive my opinions is part of their anger towards PC World for various reasons.

Fact is PC World is a very competitve and sucessful vendor and it gets this way not by ripping off customers but by making customers feel happy and confident about spending in PC World again, if everything was correct on the main page why would people come to PC World to shop over and over again?

I make this comments from my home computer - i wouldn't write any of this from the stores computers through fear of being caught as internet history is checked regulary to make sure the internet isn't used a lot at work.

Collect@Store is a very easy way to get the products you want before they run out of stock and in some cases cheaper - why would anyone have a problem with this service? Its quality, just make sure you check out the onstore price before you buy it!

Thank you for taking the time to read my views, much appreciated.

Jim (not my real name)

---

In response to your comment. Being a PC World employee makes it hard for you to have a NPOV, but lets assume you can manage it for now.

1. Are you saying that because manufacturers don't put USB cables in printer boxes, you are somehow "forced" to sell them for £15 when other shops can sell them for £2.00?

2. Do PC World sales staff get comission? Are salaries and/or bonus based on sales figures in any way? Actually, later you admit you get bonuses based on margin, so clearly selling higher margin items is directly beneficial to you and presents a conflict of interest between serving your own needs and the needs of the customer. Thanks for the proof.

3. Can you provide references showing that PCP is a good service when genuinely helps customers, rather than a money-making premium rate phone line?

4. You say you hate the perception that PCW staff are "dumb", yet you too seem to be somewhat "illeturate". Also, you then admit that staff with no technical knowledge are sometimes hired.

It is spelt illiterate and I take personal offence to that comment as I am dyslexic and are in no why dumb as your statement would imply. Dont forget Albert Einstein, Leonardo da Vinci, Thomas Edison, General George Patton, Pablo Picasso, Hans Christian Anderson, Sir Winston Churchill, Alexander Graham Bell, Michael Faraday, Thomas Jefferson, John F. Kennedy and George Washington to name a few were all dyslexic and I am sure they all had greater brain power than yourself. It is genralisations like this in society that lead to ignorance of the truth, very much like your other genralisation that PC World staff are dumb. It is comments like this that lead people to discount your argument as nothing more than a personal rant of a disgruntled customer/former employee and lend no value to this discussion and clouds your point of view as not being based on the facts of the case being argued. Top2bottom 21:08, 13 January 2007 (UTC) Member of the D.N.A. (National Dyslexia Association)

5. You claim PC World is trying to hire better trained staff, yet point out that you yourself are earning less than the minimum wage (currently £5.35 for people over 22). It seems unlikely staff with MSC qualifications would want to work for minimum wage or less.

6. You claim to have a degree, but apparently not a GCSE in English. You also claim to have a more NPOV because you work for PCW. How can you have neutral feelings towards criticism of your employeer, whose fortunes directly affect your own?

7. You go back on your claim that bonuses are based on margin, and state that instead they are based on customer satisfaction. How is that measured? Please deonstrate how the measurement does not favor customers who buy higher priced items or take out extended warranties/support packages.

8. You say you have sales targets for every day. Surely this pressures you to sell higher value items to meet those targets. Are you saying they are low targets, which you easily exceed by selling low margin, low cost products, and which you have no desire to better and nothing to gain from doing so?

Only someone outside of PC World, who can take an objective look at the situation, make objective comparisons can hope to have a really NPOV. That doesn't mean you can't contribute facts of course, as long as you can source them.

9. People often go back to PC World because there are not many alternatives. Apart from other DSG owned brands, how many other large computer stores are there? I cannot think of any other chains, only individual shops such as Novatech. The only other places for many people to buy PCs are shops like Woolies or Tesco. It's a bit like Halfords, apart some small chains like Auto World (former Les Smith) there is little choice in the UK.

10. I feel bad for you, my employeer lets me use the net as much as I like, and understand I need a break every now and then. As long as I get my work done, he trusts me.

Well Jim, I feel bad for you. PC World does not sound like a nice place to work. Mojo-chan 18:57, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

____________________

1. We don't force (well certainly i don't) customers to buy the USB cables that we sell, i talk to the customers to see if they even have one to start with, if there not sure then i just say you have 28 days to bring it back for a refund.

Just because we don't say you can buy these cables in Argos for a £5 or other places doesn't mean we are forcing them to buy one from us.

2. No were not on commission based on anything - we get a bonus for hitting margain targets based on other stores in the region we are based in - the top stores in the regions get a pro-rata bonus each.

I never have made a customer spend more than they need to and i often do the oppostie and check collect@store prices for them to SAVE them money rather than get them to spend more.

Nobody i have worked with have i ever seen them say oh no sorry this one isn't for you, you need to spend this much for this one - how exactly would that work? how could we convince customers to pay way more than they have to for basic needs?

The only interest i have is to give my customers 100% because if we get enough appraisal forms we are entitled to a pay rise, so their is no conflict of interest.

3. Taking out PCP is actually a much cheaper way to get telephone support as through PCP its 1p a minute - under the manufacturer warranty the manufactures charge as much as 75p/1.00 a minute for telephone support and they only support hardware.

PCP is great for numerous reasons and i don't have to and i won't go through them all, basically it depends on the customer, if i am talking to a computer literate customer i don't go into PCP too much.

A: Free upgrade labour fully protected B: Free repairs C: Free healthcheck every year D: 24hr telephone support on hardware/software

These can help customers in terms of:

A: No need to buy a new computer because you can keep up to date by simply upgrading the computer you have - manually upgraded void the free 12 month manufacturer warranty B: Repairs are done instore by PC World rather than in a warehouse somewhere done by the manufactures - so you know exactly where the product is and how long it will take C: Check fir virus, and does a 50-point diagnosis test on the machine looking at all aspects D: Good for installing and setting up the computer from the start for computer illiterate customers, also useful for any quick questions or queires rather than come down to PC World

4. Haha as if you can judge my knowledge when you don't even know who i am and what i know, yeah my english in this document may be a bit off but its not like this is serious stuff - how many read this anyway so why use proper english and spellings.

Its true that we have; and other local stores, have employeed some staff that aren't fully up to date on all their knowledge, and even i don't know EVERYTHING about EVERYTHING - who does? i seriously doubt you do.

I never meant that we hire anyone off the street, we only hire staff that know enough for the job (the main bits), we don't all need to be experts in every field, aslong as we don't hire completely illiterate staff.

5. Yeah pay is a serious issue, but when you work in such a great atmosphere its not too importand plus by completing training our pay goes up, i just haven't been able to finish all my training modules yet because our training manager had a stroke and i have only been with the company for a few months.

Due to my location and transport problems PC World is my best option at the moment as i have just finished uni, i am looking at other options now and will start driving soon so i am not limitied to local comapnies.

6. I do have a GCSE in English, i even have a A Level in English, i have qualifications coming out of my ears - just because i choose not to use proper english in this mediocre message board doesn't mean i cant in the real world.

7. Customer satisfaction is based on a 100 point system - its to do with questions we ask (home/business use, previous computers, usage, etc..), how quickly customers are acknowledged, and other things of this nature.

This is done by mystery shoppers so we should treat every customer as if it is a mystery shopper and ask the proper questions each time and make sure they are all served properly.

It has nothing to do with what they buy, spend, take out.

We have 2 bonuses - which is what i said, or meant to have said.

Customer Satisfaction Margin through Region

8. We don't have individual targets, and the team targets are quite low and easy to acheive if we have enough staff in, a si mentioned if we all put through 5 sales no matter what price we would easily reach the target - if we don't reach the targets set nothing happens - its just a 'satisfaction incentive' to get us staff to work harder during the day - i.e not hiding in warehouse etc..

We do sell the majority of products at very reasonable prices - only some items such as the USB cable (the only item you have mentioned so you obviously can't think of others) at a higher margin price but hey everyone does this.

Most prices are set by the suppliers such as Netgear, Belkin, Hauppage, etc.. so therefore its not PC Worlds fault, the PC Line products are very cheap and top quality.

9. I have no comment on why their aren't any competitors for PC World - but even if there was i still think most people would come back to us

10. Not going on the net isn't a problem for me, at work i ahve better usage of my time than surf the net.

---

1. As I'm sure you are aware, this is a common sales tactic. In order to get a cheaper USB cable, the buyer would need to go to another shop and look for one. Extra hassle, extra time. Also, few customers return goods they buy in error.

2. Okay, so you don't get commission on sales. However, you then go on to point out that you have magin targets and the top stores get bonuses. Let me try and spell this out for you. Your performance as a salesman, i.e. the more profit you make for the company by selling things translates directly into monitary rewards for yourself. Presumably, if you consistantly miss sales targets, there will be some negative conciquence. Therefore, it is IN YOUR INTEREST to sell higher margin items, and to convince people they need to spend as much money as possible.

I hope what you wrote really isn't your sales pitch. Here is an example of how to sell someone more than they need. "Well sir, if you go for this one, it's a little bit more but it will be future proofed. You will be able to play games on it, and when Vista comes out it will run that too. This other one is really a basic budget model, and you will probably end up wanting to upgrade it anyway."

Please explain how the appraisal forms work. Is it just a case that customers optionally pick them up and fill them in, or do you give them to customers and ask for them to be filled in?

3. Your statement on manufacturer support is simply false. It varies from company to company, but many offer free online support and telephone support at the price of a local call. Software support again depends on the company, but for example Microsoft offer two free support calls with Windows XP.

Your statement about upgrade voiding the warranty are false too. It depends on the manufacturer, but most allow the installation of PCI cards, memory, extra hard drives etc under the warranty. Also, it is possible to upgrade with external devices like USB HDDs, TV tuners etc.

Your point about repairs being done in-store is true, except in the case where PC World is unable to correct the fault themselves. For example, say you bought a HP PC and the motherboard failed. Would PC World replace the motherboard with an identical one themselves, or would it be sent back to HP for replacement?

Also, PC World staff seem rather inept at repairs. I once bought a PC from PC World which was being sold as scrap because it was beyond repair. I ran a full hardware diagnostic with PC Check, which was fine. I tried the recovery CD and it didn't work. So, I tried an ordinary Windows CD instead, which was fine and the machine is now perfect. So, the staff wrote off a PC because the recovery CD didn't work.

4. I did not suggest I know everything about everything, just that I know a considerable amount about PCs. Also, if you want to make a clear and compelling argument, the quality of your language is important. If it's such a big effort to write properly, perhaps that demonstrates that your English isn't that good. Inability to communicate effectively, particularly in a situation like this where, as you say, I know nothing about you other than what you write, does not help your cause.

5. You admit you have not been with PCW for long, yet claim to know a lot about it. It takes most people more than a few months to form informed and knowledgable oppinions about their employer.

Personally, no matter how good the atmosphere I would be looking for another job on that pay. Also, I'd consider taking legal action against PCW for paying you less than minimum wage.

6. I question your ability. You wrote "doesn't" and "cant". Your inconsistant use of the apostrophy makes me wonder if you simply can't be bothered, or if you think "alot" is a word.

7. Thanks for clarifying. I don't think it contradicts any of the points in the article though.

8. Printer cartridges, all kinds of cables including parallel, ethernet, firewire, internal audio, external audio. Speakers, blank CD/DVD media, paper, network devices, furniture.

Also, it is illegal for manufacturers to set retail prices. Should I report PCW to Trading Standards?

Mojo-chan 13:02, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

1. The USB cables are a ridiculous price, but customer's aren't forced to buy them. Indeed, most customers don't actually need them as printers are often an upgrade to older ones, and they usually have a USB Device cable. And the company is allowed to charge whatever it wishes for a USB cable - at the end of the day, it is a business and PC World has to make a profit. I hardly think buying a USB cable is that much "hassle" - pick one up while you do your shopping at Tesco for crying out loud!

Why do it then? It is a well known, common sales tactic. Other retailers, such as Toys 'r' Us use it. Mojo-chan 17:29, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

2. Reading your response, you're actually saying that PC World employees should sell computers that are only good for today, and they should come back tomorrow for a computer which will run then? Okay - there's no point for a complete overkill, and the fact that PC World employees no longer work on commission indicates that there's no need for them to sell a PC with features a customer will never use, but I think you'll find that when someone wants to buy a PC, they'll want it as a long term investment. Ever consider that if you forked out £600, you might actually want to be able to run Vista in the future too? Why not fork out an extra £100 and have a computer that can last a lot longer for it?

I'll say it again: "Your performance as a salesman, i.e. the more profit you make for the company by selling things translates directly into monitary rewards for yourself." I am not juding your individual actions, or even the reality of the situation, I am simply saying that a conflict of interest exists. Mojo-chan 17:29, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

3. Ever dealt with a manufacturer? Most of them are Premium rate phone numbers, they redirect you out to India and then expect you to wait 10 minutes to speak to a human. And manufacturers like to plead anything to get you to pay for the repair costs - my personal favourite was when HP declared my motherboard was fried because of an Act of God rather than a technical glitch which I know wasn't true. I declined this and they sent me the bill for diagnosis and courier fees. This after they'd taken 6 weeks to even look at the thing!

You seem to be confused... I'm not saying other manufacturers are better, I'm saying PC World has come under fire for it's own support. Also, in answer to your question, I have delt with many manufacturers, which is why I made the statement that their support offerings vary considerably as that is my experience. Mojo-chan 17:29, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

4. As far as I'm aware, PC World (DSG International as a whole, in fact) has a pretty good screening process in terms of applicants - they have to undergo a verbal and numerical reasoning exam, as well as a customer values exam before even getting to an interview and technical knowledge exam. Most other shops will be glad if you even passed your GCSEs..

That's interesting, and would make a useful addition to the article. Can you provide sources? For example, a web application form, or a copy of a printed one with such tests on it? Something we can cite? Mojo-chan 17:29, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

5. You know, pay isn't the be all and end all of a job. I'd personally hate to be in a poor condition job with no staff perks or job satisfaction even if I was earning £10/hour. If you enjoy the job and it pays enough for you to live comfortably, then you don't complain. People elsewhere in the world have it much tougher - get over it.

My point was that you seem to be getting less than the legal minimum wage, which is illegal. I happen to agree that pay is not the most important factor in a job. Mojo-chan 17:29, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

6. That's just a petty personal attack. Grow up.

It was a personal "attack", but I don't think it was petty. Your English seems to have improved somewhat in this latest edit. My point is that the ability to communicate effectively is very important, especially on a discussion forum like this. Like it or not, the quality of your English does affect the way people consider your arguments. Mojo-chan 17:29, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

8. Nice way to twist words - very clever. Did you do a special GCSE English course, or was that for extra credits? Everyone knows that Printer Cartridges are where printer manufacturers make their real money. As the saying goes, "Invent something that people have to keep buying parts for" - that's why disposable razor parts are so expensive. I don't see you giving aggro to supermarkets and drugstores. It's a capitalist world, and everyone is out to make as much money as possible. It isn't going to change anytime soon either.

Again, what relevance does this have to the article? I'm not sure in what way you think I am twisting words. Also, I am generally quite critical of supermarkets in general, but again I don't see what relevance it has to this article. I did not take any kind of special English GCSE course. Mojo-chan 17:29, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and I picked up a cheap set of PC Line speakers for £8 last week, hardly breaking the bank and did the job I need. I think you'll find that the manufacturers have a MRR they put on the product followed by a RRP that PC World has to put on the product. Now unless you're suggesting that PC World should be a non-profit organisaton and should charge rock bottom prices for all of it's products, I can't really see what your point on any of this is. The fact of the matter is that PC World is a retail company with shareholders who have invested money in them like most companies out there. I don't know if you're of some communist background or something, but in the UK the general aim is to make money. Now it seems to me that PC World seems to have done a pretty good job at that or else they wouldn't be the biggest PC retailer in the country - remarkable seeing as the competition from online retailers is pretty intense, and PC World has to factor costs such as rent, utilities, staff training and wages into the expenses lodger.

I'm not questioning captialism, I'm pointing out that enforced pricing from manufacturers/suppliers is illegal in the UK. I'm sure DSG know this. While it is possible for a manufacturer or supplier to set a "recommended retail price", it is in no way enforceable. Any attempt to enforce it is illegal. As such, your comment that "most prices are set by the suppliers" is either false or something illegal is happening. As such, I do not think that claiming high prices on branded goods being set by suppliers is a valid argument. That is what I was trying to say, i.e. I was trying to refute the argument you made. Mojo-chan 17:29, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

And if you are comparing PC World's prices to that of online retailers, maybe you should do a little research and find out the extra expenses PC World has that online retailers don't.

I was comparing it to other "brick and mortar" retailers. Mojo-chan 17:29, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

---

the PC Line products are very cheap and top quality.

This is a lie, i was a PC world employee and went through their intesive six week training programme and was told in no uncertain terms that the PC Line products were made as cheaply as posssible (the USB cables you mention are made for a sum in Pence! retail price is 16.99 at last check!) thus the quality of these items in comparison to say belkin is very unfavorable indeed!. Soot and stars 21:28, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

And there in lies the truth! about my point from earlier about sounding like disgruntled customer/former employee. I will let fellow readers form their own decision on were you base the foundations of your personal arguments and dislike about PC World. But I will say this making personal insulting attacks to someone on the opposite side of an argument is not the way to win a argument Top2bottom 21:54, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

i actually am very fond of PC world and they way it was run, as an employee i was very happy indeed i left to persue something else i simply wished to point out to anyone reading the above argument a fact which i learned along the way. I have little bad to say about the company so accusing me of being a disgruntled former employee is completely baseless. Soot and stars 15:11, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I never accussed you of being a disgruntled former employee, I actual stated that you sounded like a disgruntled former employee especially when you personnal attack someone on the other side of a argument for being dumb because their writing was illiterate (which I note you have not responded to that statement). I was merely trying to point out what others might perceive (as i did) to be your motives/personal opinion for your side of the argument and what they are based on, which is not baseless.Top2bottom 01:10, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry but i never personally attacked anyone.. only the 2 previous paragraphs signed with my name are by me, the above lengthy argument hasn't been me. Trust me my literacy level isn't good enough to critise anyones! lol hope that clears that up. All i wanted to do here was point out a fact relating to the price of USB cables. Soot and stars 11:04, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I apologise completely, it is my fault for not looking at the signatures on each comment. I had confussed you with Mojo-chan. As you say it was a lengthy argument and by the end my eyes were tired LOL.

Top2bottom 14:15, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Chavster01 recent additions

I have just rv'ed Chavster01's additions pending discussion.

First, what is the "weasle" thing about?

Second, the citation tags. In this instance, I don't think citations for each section are appropriate, for two main reasons. First, if there is to be a citation tag, it should be for the entire section of criticisms. Perhaps a short warning at the start of the section, along the lines of "the following represents oppinons and may not necessarily be fact". Needs better wording.

Also, I have been trying really hard to find citations for this section, but it's difficult. There are plenty of complaints on forums, even people writing their complaints to the page. You will not that the article says "common complatints", without suggesting they are necessarily factual as opposed to perceptual. There are complaints in magazine articles, newspaper articles, many review sites, plus in the references already provided for the article. However, these are difficult to cite in this context. Of course, we are open to suggestions on this one. Mojo-chan 17:34, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Deltic edits

User Deltic has proposed to change the section on Gary Glitter to the following:

"In 1999 British pop star Gary Glitter took his PC into a branch of PC World in Bristol for repair, and child pornography was found on the machine. PC World informed the Police, and Glitter was subsequently convicted and imprisoned. This triggered a debate about the ethics of PC World employees trawling for images on machines trusted to them for repair."

Before making this change to an already acceptable (IMHO) section of the article, please discuss it here. My comments are:

1. The current text is fine. If you disagree, please state why.

2. There are a few errors in the above text. The word police does not need to be capitalised. There are some omissions, for example I think it should be pointed out that Glitter's convition was based (at least in part) on the evidence found on his PC. It does not mention precisely what he was convicted of (posession, not child abuse for example). Also, it seems to imply that the debate centred on employees actively looking for images on PCs, when in fact it is not known if they did or not. In other words, the debate was over the plausability of accidental discovery. The original text makes this clear.

3. The citation needed tag still needs to be in there.

I'm not saying the original text is perfect (in fact, I'm off to make a one word edit now) but I do not think the new version is in any way superior. Mojo-chan 17:13, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

My version is fine, you state whats wrong with it. D e l t i c 21:36, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I did. Please read what I wrote above. There is no point having an edit war, especially if you cannot justify your changes. Please understand that making major edits should improve the article, and when there is a dispute over the edits it is up to you to argue the case for them. At the moment, all you have said is that your version is less "wordy". I have refuted that above, please respond. Note, that a one line response is not sufficient for a debate. Mojo-chan 22:50, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

meh.

The Connected Home

I have added a new section on The Connected Home - feel free to add/edit as required. 82.152.214.137 17:57, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I edited it a little. Have to noticed how the scroll arrows on their web site scroll the wrong way? Mojo-chan 18:21, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I picked up on that. Also like how it's really not Google friendly.. 82.152.214.137 21:44, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

New support info

Please discuss changes to the criticisms section here first.

There were some general edits which seem to poorly chosen, but I think the new support options bit has merit:

"However, if the support package is taken, now done on a monthly basis via direct debit, with no contract (ie you're not tied in for twelve months such as a broadband contract) the hardware and software support helpline, is only national rate, and based in the UK which is open all day everyday, even on bank holidays[3]"

This needs some work though. I have a question: how can there be no contract if there is a direct debit? Isnt a direct debit itself a contract? Also, most companies do not appreciate it if you randomly cancel your DDs.

Other than that, here is my NPOV re-write:

"New support packages are now available, monthly basis paid for via direct debit. The hardware and software support helpline, charged at national rate, and based in the UK and is always open."

Oh, and what do you base the claim that the call centres are based in the UK on? Do you have a reference, or should it be removed?

PS. Sorry for the typos, using a Japanese keyboard. Mojo-chan 07:22, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

— Not sure why you removed the reference to the new southampton store? trust me its there, i used to work there! it does indeed feature the new layout and logo. i will re-add the picture when i am able. Soot and stars 23:05, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, my mistake when doing the rv. I have seen the store myself. Mojo-chan 05:20, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Windows Vista Price-Fixing Accusations

Regarding this new section I removed:-

In January 2006, PC World was found to be advertising the soon-to-be-released Microsoft Windows Vista computer operating system at almost 50% more than retailers in the United States. Amazon US is currently advertising the Windows Vista 'Home Premium' Upgrade package for $154.99 USD (£78.80 GBP). PC World in the United Kingdom is advertising the same package for $295.00 (£149.99 GBP) - a price difference of £71.19 (not including shipping charges from the United States or VAT (17.5%)).

We definitely need citations for this; and another obvious question is *who* "found [it] to be" selling Vista at the higher price. If it was the same person who made the edit, then I object to the use of non-attributed weasel language to sneak it in; were it "I found that" or "this editor found that", it would obviously be "original research" and rejected as such, even if the prices themselves were verifiable.

This has led to criticism from consumers of yet another example of Rip Off Britain.

Which consumers?

Sorry, but regardless of the merits of the criticism, we need clear indication that such criticism came from a reputable third party source, and we need to know who it was.

Fourohfour 22:42, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

PC World is selling Vista at the UK RRP if you have a look at Wiki's article on Windows_Vista_editions_and_pricing. Yes, you can get Vista cheaper via other retailers, but as you will find with the majority of high street stores, software like this is sold at RRP. I'm not saying it's cheap, but it's not over pricing it. aslate 21:51, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

One team

I have removed the section on One Team for now, pending discussion. The section as added did not cite any sources, or provide any evidence of any kind.

It seems that One Team is actually a marketing strategy, not an attempt to improve customer service. Commission is still earn't, just not individually any more. The issue of extended warranties has also not been addressed. In essence, it seems PC World has attempted to appear more honest by "confessing" to ripping off customers for years, in the hope that this honesty and a change in the way commission is calculated will con people into thinking that PC World sales staff are no longer pressured by sales figures and have their best interests at heart.

At best, this action could merit a mention (and citation, I suggest http://www.channelregister.co.uk/2006/03/24/pcworld_cares/ - there is a telegraph article too but it is just a platform for PC World spin) in the criticisms section. It would have to be noted though that the One Team scheme itself has been heavily critisied for not being genuine and flying in the face of logic. Mojo-chan 08:52, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

"positives" section

If making the article more NPOV is the goal, then this kind of stuff cannot be used:

1. PC World also has a loyal customer following and regularly receives praise from it's customers. 2. Quick service, with plenty of stock available for purchases

Sources?

3. Low Priced items, often with special discounts such as weekend offers on Laptops and PCs

Subjective. When you compare PC World prices directly to other shops or even PC World Online, their prices cannot be described as "low".

4. Helpful and knowledgeable members of staff

Hahahahahaha.... oh wait, you were serious. Okay, can you provide sources and explain this assertion, particularly in light of staff being on commission.

5. Good after care service from the TechGuys, in store, online and through telephone support.

My sources say otherwise. Again, apart from your own opinion, can you provide any evidence of this?

6. Many stores throughout the country.

I wouldn't dispute that but I fail to see how it is a positive aspect of the operation. In fact, many would argue that Dixions Group are responsible for helping the growth of clone towns in the UK. Mojo-chan 07:53, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Fact tags

There was no need for all those tags. Most of them were on parts of the article that actually had citations anyway. Please discuss here if you feel otherwise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mojo-chan (talk • contribs) 12:43, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Staff comission edits

To the anon editor making changed to the staff commission section, please try to understand why you cannot simply make these claims.

The section cites an article that it then summarises. The article points out that staff do still receive bonus pay based on "overall store performance", which includes profits. Another PC World employee confirmed that on this very discussion page.

If you want to change the wording, you need to provide a citation to refute the article and prove what you are saying is in fact true. If you have such a citation, please post it here first before making further edits. Mojo-chan (talk) 14:14, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the recent edit by Cowholemania, I can only once again state that claims need to be backed up by citations. Simply "knowing" something because you are a PC World employee is not enough, since the facts are not verifiable. Please find some material supporting what you say that we can cite.

Also, what you wrote contains various grammatical errors and is original research (i.e. it draws conclusions rather than simply stating facts and summarising, for example the bit about people not attending any work related functions). I'd also point out that most companies provide their staff with work related functions and events regardless of performance, so again store profits (as well as other metrics) are used as an incentive to staff. Assuming a citation can be found, I would suggest that the preceding paragraph needs re-wording because it contradicts what Cowholemania wrote. Mojo-chan (talk) 12:08, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Cowholemania just pointed out there there is in fact a yearly pay bonus based on store performance, confirming the original text and the source cited. I have asked for the page to be temporarily protected since Cowholemania seems to be incapable of using the discussion page. Mojo-chan (talk) 12:43, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to SkierRMH for the protection. Hopefully whoever was making the edits will now at least try and use this page. Mojo-chan (talk) 13:46, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Criticism section

I do feel some of this is in contravention of NPOV. It does seem to be uncitably criticising PC World without necessarily being based on versions of the facts.

Failure to honor statutory responsibilities under the Sale of Goods Act (see controversies below)

Only one of those, arguably, could be defined as a failure to honor [sic] responsibilities under the Sale of Goods Act, and that is the one about the Linux machine. Even in that case, either PC World refused to comment or were vague in the media about why that decision was reached. It IS the responsibility of the retailer to state why a machine did conform to contract at purchase if a machine is less than six months old (otherwise the burden is reversed). If PC World could attribute and prove that the machine did conform then it is borderline whether or not this is considered illegal.

Either that, or reported, verifiable (in other words, not original) reports of PC World directly failing to honour SOGA could be provided.

Lack of genuine computer knowledge amongst staff [1][2]

1 is a link to a list of reviews of PC World so virtually worthless as a citation, having read 2 I would come to the same conclusion. Both are unverifiable original reviews on review sites where the public submit, claims are nor necessarily backed up and are one-sided; I doubt these are of merit to cite as proof of that.

Sales-oriented culture that pressurises staff into promoting more expensive goods, regardless of suitability, and often with misleading or incorrect information (see false advertising below)

Not referenced to any particular section of the article, nor backed up with any evidence. Not verifiable.

Customers are required to use out-sourced, local rate telephone support for hardware issues or premium rate telephone lines (£1.50/minute, except for set-up which is £1/minute) for software issues, unless an extended warranty has been purchased.

I don't see why that is a criticism, the policy is in line with any other retailer. If you are calling up for support with a problem then it is only reasonable to foot the bill for the call. Local rate for a problem which isn't potentially caused by a virus or other user-derived software problem is cheap and if appropriate steps are taken offline a short call. For software problems this is not part of the product nor a fault of the product so it is only reasonable that the retailer should not be expected to provide this service. Don't forget any problems requiring advice on the software issues could be researched through the internet or resolved by formatting the machine. If it's their fault they pay (or you pay a nominal fee), if it's your fault, you pay.

I'd also doubt the support is out-sourced, per se. Sure, the Techguys support line in Nottingham is, as discussed, run by Capita presently, but the resources were inherited from DSG and as I understand they do collaborate closely on the level of service provided, so I would doubt it would be any worse than if it would be run by DSG, which the Techguys brand is part of.

As for the extra support being provided by an extended warranty and other matters relating to warranties, well, it is a package that if you research the pros and cons before deciding whether or not to take it, then you can decide if it's for you, but if one is paying £5-10 per month for a support package then it has to cover something, it has to have benefits.

As this is in line with the rest of the industry I don't see how this criticism is fair to be levelled solely at PCW or even DSG as a whole.

Lack of choice or availability of individual computer components, rendering the store of limited value to more computer savvy consumers

Again, really this should be expanded upon, personally, I've found an adequate range in component centre, though I suspect it could be cheaper on line.

Overpriced goods when compared with equivalent independent retailer or on-line prices, for all but out-of-the box PC systems

Two points: 1. If people didn't pay the higher price they wouldn't be able to sell the products. 2. Don't smaller independent stores and online merchants have less retail overheads anyway. You're paying for the large warehouse on a retail park, heating, lighting, staff, floor space, this money does have to come from somewhere. IMO, you can't really compare the pricing any more than you can compare, for example, Amazon and Waterstones.

Disparity in pricing between PC World stores, the PC World website and other shops owned by the Dixons group.

Not only can they sell the goods at the price they choose, it would be nice to see this "fattened up" or cited. Again, I'll mention the point of retail store vs distribution warehouse overheads.

Complaints of repairs not being completed

The existing citation needed tag on this is perfectly fair, especially if it applies to the whole section.

Basically, the section needs severely expanding and preferably conforming with Wikipedia's guide to verifiable content, which presently it does not.

http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability

86.3.219.136 (talk) 18:40, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay, a lot to respond to here. First up, on the SOGA compliance. There are a lot of forum posts on the net describing people having problems with PC World (and other DSG stores) that fall under it. It has also been featured on BBC Watchdog several times. The real problem here is getting good citations. I'm working on it. I'd also point out that one part of the act states that goods must be "fit for purpose", and a 17" laptop bag that does not fit 17" laptops would surely be considered not fit for purpose.

The lack of knowledge claims are once again difficult to verify, however there is evidence if you look for it. In particular, the incompetence of technical support staff is well documented, for example in the case of them replacing a HDD with a second hand part and failing to wipe and restore it. I used to work for a computer repair shop and we fixed a lot of machines that PC World said were dead, often just with simple faults like dead HDDs or faulty screen backlight inverters. Again, I have to agree that better sources are required.

The bit about sales oriented culture is backed up by PC World themselves. Their own advertising campaign admitted it and then tried to claim (falsely) that they had moved away from it. The source is given at the bottom of the section.

On the subject of telephone support, it's worth pointing a couple of things out. Firstly, a lot of companies offer free telephone support (you just pay for the phone call, either local or national rate depending where you are). My old shop did that, as do many major retailers such as Tesco and Ikea. Many companies that do charge do so at either "LoCall" or national rate (similar to the old "free" dial-up services where the ISP takes a cut of the phone call cost). Premium rate, especially such expensive premium rate phone lines are generally seen as poor service and exploitation by consumers. For that reason many companies offer it for free to improve the "customer experience".

Also, the phone lines are definitely outsourced. In fact, support for all DSG own brand products is, both on the phone and the internet. I have added a reference.

As for overpricing, recently I was in Tokyo. Land in Tokyo is more expensive than almost anywhere in the world. Business taxes and wages are similar to the UK. Yet, they had massive stores selling huge ranges of parts at very reasonable prices. The argument that large retailers like PC World have bigger overheads is an old and thoroughly debunked one. In fact, due to bulk purchasing, their margins are usually higher than small retailers. As for the internet argument, the biggest problem for PC World is that they sell the same stuff on their web site cheaper than in the store. You can order it online for a significant saving and collect it from the store. Thus, the store is still required to stock the item, to employ people to serve you, and yet are forced to charge less because they are competing with online retailers. They are blatantly charging customers who go directly to the store more, which is dishonest at best. In fact, it is borderline illegal since the SOGA states you must charge all customers the same amount, but DSG get around it by making the online part a separate business in "competition" with their retail stores.

As for repairs not being completed, again I agree more citations are needed, although I'd point out that the fact customers are apparently having machines returned to them loaded with images of bestiality suggests that repairs were not completed. Although a second hand part was used, as it DSGs right under the law, it is reasonable to expect that they would have wiped the previous owners data and installed a fresh OS from restore discs. So, there it at least once citation. Mojo-chan (talk) 13:34, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Examples....

Is Mojo-Chan simply a DSGi hater?

The ratio of "examples" given in any of his examples must surely be miniscule in comparison to the total number of successful repairs, sales, exchanges, interactions with customers, etc, etc.

That's not to say that where issues have indeed happened, that they were acceptable. Overall, this sort of negativity and opportunist negativity must be given a break.

What a fool. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.167.135.227 (talk) 10:42, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Classic spurious logic from an IP which appears to belong to DSG. Feel free to add examples of PC World doing good, if you can find any. Have they ever gone above and beyond to help a customer, or received a genuine award from an independent body? If so, find the citation and add it. Unfortunately you have to accept that if you cannot make a reasoned, backed up argument then name calling and claiming persecution is not a valid alternative. Mojo-chan (talk) 18:15, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

"IP which appears to belong to DSG" - oh really, what makes you think that? Can you give a logical explanation? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.171.129.72 (talk) 10:57, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

In 2007, PC World won Retail Week's Product Innovation of the Year award, for its Data Recovery service. This took about 4 seconds to find. So there you go, one example of something good PC World has created for customers.

Contrary to your belief, I am not connected in any way to PC World/DSGi. I am simply amazed at the negativity you are displaying. If someone mentions something positive about PC World you automatically look for a way to argue against it. This is obviously an ingrained hatred for the company. I have purchased many items from the group and have had excellent service more often than not. The ratio of good customer service to bad WILL be substantially in favour of good customer service: Please demonstrate if this isn't the case if you can. Bear in mind PC World seem to generate £1.8 billion in sales, so one, two......twenty.....thirty, exapmles wouldn't be enough (relative to total activity).

My oh my... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.171.129.72 (talk) 11:09, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

The IP address used is owned by the ISP that DSG uses. It is of course possible that is just a coincidence. As for the award, Retail Week is an industry magazine and hardly an independent source. Unfortunately there are many such publications and groups, manufacturing awards so that every two-bit company can have some nice awards to it's name.

Your use of spurious logic is quite accomplished, on that I congratulate you. Of course, for any company to survive, the majority of customers must have a reasonably positive experience. The article does not suggest otherwise. However, that does not mean that notable high profile issues should not be mentioned either. To give an example, most people who buy Ford cars are generally quite happy with them. Unfortunately, some people who bought Pintos burnt to death when their engines exploded after a rear-end collision due to design flaws. Ford tried to cover it up. So, 0.001% of their customers burnt to death, but 99.999% were okay... perhaps we shouldn't mention it?

Find a good example of customer service, that can be reliably cited, and feel free to add it to the article. A good example would be the article on Travelodge UK. It has stuff about their dodgy booking policies as well as info on the couple who have lived in one for about a decade. What you have to understand is I don't hate PC World, it's just that there are lots of notable examples of problems with them and apparently no reliable examples of good customer service. This is not all that surprising in a way - DSG had to get rid of Dixons because the name was so tarnished. Mojo-chan (talk) 17:51, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure that the issue with the Ford Pintos is touched upon, but not held up as an example of everyday practise, unlike "Complaints of repairs not being completed (see controversies section)"

A good example of customer service: www.markwilson.co.uk/blog/2006/05/amazingly-excellent-customer-service.htm . I found that through googling 'PC World praise'.

And, yes, this is posted from a PC World computer. I'm on a break and this annoyed me. The company is definitely not whiter-than-white and there's loads of things wrong with it. Lots of the complaints are very valid. However, a lot of the criticisms section is unverified, unreferenced and full of opinions rather than facts. Any attempt to offer up new information appears to be being rejected as bias or unreferenced, unlike "Sales-oriented culture that pressurises staff into promoting more expensive goods, regardless of suitability" which has only a loosely linked citation of "false advertising" and no reference to any material which makes this statement NPOV, yet is considered reliable enough to be in an encyclopaedia. 164.38.32.28 (talk) 10:06, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the wording needed improvement, however examples are cited in both that section and the following one. I'm not sure what you mean by "Any attempt to offer up new information appears to be being rejected as bias or unreferenced" - we are all for new information, it just needs to meet basic Wikipedia standards. Being a PC World employee and claiming that cited sources are wrong is not enough. As to the citation for false advertising, PC World has repeatedly been found guilty of it by the ASA, as cited. Therefore it is a statement of fully referenced fact.

I do like the reference you found for good customer service though. It's a handy citation for the disparity in pricing between PC World online and in-store too. Normally blog posts are not the kind of thing we want to cite, for obvious reasons, but since Mark is a well known and established blogger I think it would be a useful addition. Please Understand though that a single blog post is generally not useful for establishing trends like quality of customer service, while things like independent and verifiable surveys are. Mojo-chan (talk) 12:15, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Balancing the article

The article, as it stands, seems to be very aggressive towards PC World. Granted, the company has done some pretty reprehensible things in the past and customer experience fluctuates wildly depending on which store they visit and which member of staff they meet. However, the article reads like a hatchet job, with individual customer reviews of a personal bad experience with a store held up as the status quo for the chain and there are people aggressively re-editing attempts to introduce any opposing viewpoint. I myself attempted to add one of the positive Ciao reviews available (such as this one: http://www.ciao.co.uk/PC_World_Shop__Review_5053345) and it was quickly deleted. The negative Ciao reviews are still referenced in the article.

I agree that individual customer reviews should be removed, and I have removed the Ciao ones myself. Individual reviews are not really useful sources, except in cases where a reputable journalist has researched one (as in the cases towards the end of the controversies section). Mojo-chan (talk) 12:36, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

This is in startling contrast to the articles on Currys and Dixons, both of which barely mention any criticisms, despite the chains having as bad or worse press as PC World.

I view that as a deficiency in those articles. Clearly Dixons in particular was notorious, so bad in fact that the brand name has been removed from the high street. Mention of this should really be made. Mojo-chan (talk) 12:36, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Another example would be the infamous commission claim, which has bounced back and forth from edit to unedit. The staff at PC World do receive a monthly bonus which is based upon total sales figures. This is not necessarily something to condemn the chain for; they are in the business of selling things! The previous commission system, however, was something to condemn them for; staff were bribed with individual profits for selling particular products. These commissions were, of course, funded by manufacturers, meaning that the advice offered varied depending on what was most profitable for the salesperson to sell! The current text of the article, and some of the editors, appear sceptical that any change has occurred and so any editing to the sentiment that any claim of an abolition of commission 'is misleading' is swiftly unedited.

It's not so much scepticism over the fact that a change has taken place, it's that many of us take issue with the claim that PC World tried to make that it's staff were no longer on commission. They turned it into a PR event, with full page ads in national newspapers. Yet, as you yourself point out, staff still receive a "bonus" based on overall store sales. Any reasonable person can see that is still commission. The conflict of interest still exists - staff are encouraged to sell more, higher value items in order to increase their bonus. So what if it's a store wide bonus? If you are one of 10 sales staff you still have a 10% influence over your own bonus.

Of course, all shops want to make a profit, that is understood. The problem here is that most customers would like to think that shop staff would not be trying to rip them off by selling what they want to sell, rather than what best suits the customers needs. If this was not a problem, why did PC World feel the need to spend vast sums of money on full page adverts claiming they were not doing it any more? Mojo-chan (talk) 12:36, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I disagree heartily with you that bonuses are the same as commission. Imagine that HP want to sell a particular printer. They offer PC World employees £X every time they sell that printer. Lo and behold, every customer suddenly gets advised that this is the best printer for them, regardless of whether it's actually suitable. Same with the warranty - if one was sold, then the employee would get £X; no wonder they were pushy! That's really not a good thing for the customers and I'm not surprised that PC World wanted to get away from that type of salesmanship - and ensure that everyone saw them getting away from that salesmanship.

The bonus, on the other hand, is much less cause and effect. One customer does not earn you money and screwing one person over with the wrong sale does not get you any reward in exchange for the grief when they realise they've been screwed and come back angry. Yes, the bonus does mean a big angle of "Sell more and we shall have money." However, in this case, the incentive is for the employee to make the customer buy things that suit them, as to do otherwise runs the risk of losing the customer satisfaction mystery shop bonus (which is worth the same maximum amount and is far easier to get (Shall I add my own citation needed sign?)). Showing the customer to a product which does not suit their needs actually gets you a fail on the mystery shop, if I recall correctly. I will conclude by pointing out that I have been working for PC World since January 2007, in a successful and growing store. We have never acheived a bonus for store figures in the time that I have been there (because PC World are tight bast have demanding requirements before paying out money). However, we get £50 or £100 from a possible £200 customer satisfaction bonus on most months.

I realise that the entirety of the above requires a big "Citation needed" sign, but I'm writing this, not for the article, but in the hope of settling the debate by offering facts as I know them. I don't have anything but my claim to work for the company to back them up (stupid company not publishing their bonus structure!), but I'd like to hope my explanation shows that a bonus based on total store performance is not the same as a specific monetary reward for screwing customers. Try going to Phones 4 U if you want to see the pressure-sales tactics that can ensue from the latter (goes to see if Phones 4 U's article is angry too). Pujaemuss (talk) 23:54, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I see what you are saying, and I agree that the current bonus system is different to the commission system. However, I have to say I still think that the original point stands - salary is still linked to sales. I used to work at an independent computer shop, and we got paid the same no matter what we sold, or even if we sold nothing (which happened). Actually, I was mainly doing repairs (often of PCs that had already been "repaired" by PC World, but that's another story) and again it made no odds to my wages how much a repair bill came to. I'm sure that if it had, I would have made an effort to beef the bills up. Instead we focused on good service so that we got repeat customers, and getting turn-around times down so that we could do more machines per month. Similarly with sales, it was more important to sell someone the right thing. Being a small shop (never more than six staff) we relied on our reputation, but couldn't afford clever PR so actually had to be good rather that just looking good.

I'm not suggesting that all PC World staff are stereotypical "nasty" salespeople, just that there is clearly a conflict of interest and the advertising and PR PC World put out was clearly designed to be misleading. I wish I had a scan of that full page ad they did. Of course there are many other references to examples of where they have lied or mislead through PR, and in a way it's a shame because there do seem to be some honest staff who are only damaged by those escapades. Mojo-chan (talk) 14:05, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I feel that this lack of balance is responsible for some of the vandalism of late. People work there to make their living and while the quality of service and effort may vary from employee to employee, I'd imagine that several of them are quite proud of doing their best at their career and thus quite hurt when see what they consider to be insults to their efforts.

They should try not to take it personally, or improve the article. I know that for inexperienced editors it can seem like a personal attack when their contributions are edited or removed, but unfortunately inexperienced editors often tend to make edits which don't meet even basic Wikipedia standards. If you look at other editors edits, and my own edits, you will see that we do usually try to incorporate all new information into the article where possible. Mojo-chan (talk) 12:36, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I would like to propose merging the criticisms and controversies and re-examining some of them for verity. I would also propose a section entitled Changes, which could ennumerate the attempts that the chain have made to improve service (such as removing individual commission, removing product-specific commission and introducing the Power of Knowledge training).

I partly agree with you. The controversies and parasitisms sections do include some information on PC Worlds reactions to these issues, including all the elements you mention, but it could probably be better presented. A timeline, as you suggest, might be a good way to do it. Mojo-chan (talk) 12:36, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I am in no way proposing a whitewash of the article, or in any way claiming that the chain is whiter than white. It has problems and those problems are many and varied. However, I'd like to conclude by pointing out that the 'Criticisms' section contains 8 unreferenced statements, such as "Sales-oriented culture that pressurises staff into promoting more expensive goods, regardless of suitability, and often with misleading or incorrect information", without any citation of any source. Any attempts to defend the store or its employees have been met with "Provide citation" edits (which would be very difficult to find, considering I don't imagine many companies publish their employee handbooks and bonus values on the internet).

It is an unfortunate fact of life that it is much harder to find references for positive behaviour than it is to find those for negative behaviour. Articles on many famous people contain a lot of "dirt", because while they may be excellent human beings generally mistakes are often highly publicised and lead to notoriety in themselves. The article on Apple is another good example - their image is controversial but it ends up being easier to supply cited criticism than cited praise. However, if you look there are positive reviews of their products from reliable media sources. I wish there were more for PC World, but I have looked and they are very hard to find. Mojo-chan (talk) 12:36, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I would be willing to spend some of my time to provide a draft of my proposals, although I will obviously not bother if they will be instantly edited, without consideration of their merits. Pujaemuss (talk) 22:31, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to thank Mojo-chan for replying reasonably. Before this, I don't think people understood why the article was the way it was and I feel the changes that you've made already have gone some way to making the article less of an opinion piece. I will prepare a draft when I get a free moment. Pujaemuss (talk) 23:54, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Looking forward to what you come up with.

Fair use rationale for Image:PC-world-logo.png

Image:PC-world-logo.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 14:57, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Recent changes

I removed poorly sourced, falsely sourced and unsourced information from the article. Information based on good references was reincorporated into the article. The criticism and controversy sections were an utter mess of railing against the company. For some examples of problems in the previous version: One source was in praise of PC World, not in criticism.[1] Another source did not make the claims in the article.[2] For examples of what was wrong with the controversy section and sourcing: One source documented an isolated incident where the store resolved the problem, not indicating any "controversy".[3] Another source was a single self-published complaint.[4] I removed the remaining unsourced material. I then integrated the good sources from the previous sections into the main body of the article.[5][6] Vassyana (talk) 12:20, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Please debate such major changed before making them. As you can see, there has been discussion on this talk page about improving the article, but deleting massive sections of it is not the way to do it. If you have some constructive ideas, please share them.

I hate wasting my time reading the sources for you, but I will address some of your points. Regarding [7], you will notice that it supports the claim that the phone lines are outsourcecd. The Mark Wilson blog entry is to support the disparity in pricing between the stores and the web site. While it does offer praise, that does not mean it cannot also support this point.

If you want to remove stuff you think is unsourced, please state exactly what it is and preferably add a fact tag to it, so other editors can try to find references. Mojo-chan (talk) 17:47, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

This is not a debate club. Dishonest, inaccurate and unsourced reporting does not require extensive discussion to remove or fix. The burden is on those wanting to insert information, not on those removing falsely sourced and unsourced material. If you want to insert a claim and it is disputed, you must provide a reliable source. Additionally, you must use the source in context. For example, the source does indeed mention they outsource their phone support. It makes no claims about the rates, nor does it present it as criticism. Therefore, we cannot make claims about the rates nor present it as criticism within Wikipedia based on that source. To do so is not only against policy, but simply dishonest and against good common sense. Similarly, the blog was used completely out of context. Additionally, the blog is a self-published source, which is additionally problematic. Using sources dishonestly and out-of-context is simply not acceptable in the least. If you persist on restoring the false and out-of-context use of sources, I will be forced to request the intervention of an uninvolved administrator. I sincerely recommend that you review our content policies before continuing down this disruptive path. Vassyana (talk) 01:39, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I have started to add some more sources. If you have issues with specific sources, that's fine, but you should debate them individually and give editors and opportunity to improve them rather than just deleting them en masse. I think what you don't seem to understand is that Wikipedia is based on consensus, and if you read the other discussion on this page you should be able to see that your views are not in sync with what the majority of other editors think. In that sense, this is a debate club, because many people disagree with your claims.

There is no need to threaten to get administrators involved. I don't mind you doing that but it would be nice if we could at least try and reach some kind of consensus on our own. As I have already said, I and many other editors believe that the article could be improved, but butchering it is not the solution. Please use this discussion page to list your disputes individually, and allow some debate and opportunity for improvement before removing them. You have to understand that while you feel some of the article may be inaccurate and unsourced, not everyone automatically agrees with you and making such vast changes without any consensus is likely to result in reverts and getting the article locked, which no-one wants. Mojo-chan (talk) 10:30, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I see no such consensus on this talk page, except for your insistence. Feel free to direct me otherwise with section links. Material that is both uncontroversial and likely accurate needing citation should be tagged, discussed and generally otherwise given a change. This is not true for controversial material. Neither is it true for the kind of material where sources have sought for over a year and a half.[8] Saying after that time period that you need more time or you're searching for sources simply doesn't suffice. There's been more than enough time for improvement and citation. I beg of you to review our content policies. Please cease reinserting false citations and unsourced controversial material. Again, all of my edits are clearly marked and I clearly responded to some of your feedback above. I have clearly explained what the issues are and why the changes are needed. I've clearly linked to some relevant policies and have directed you to the content policy as a whole. Please self-revert, as it has been clearly explained what is wrong. In the absence of a serious rebuttal of my explanations and claims, I will not respond further, as that's not an invitation to discussion and consensus-building, that's an invitation to a debate. Vassyana (talk) 10:53, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Improvements

I have made some small improvements to the criticisms section. They are are okay I think there could be some further improvements. In particular, some of the bullet points could be better integrated into the text of the section. I also suggest renaming the section "Criticism and responses" to better reflect the fact that PC World does usually offer some kind of PR response, acknowledging the issues listed. Mojo-chan (talk) 11:10, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Here is my suggestion for some improvements, comments welcome:

• Failure to honour statutory responsibilities under the Sale of Goods Act (see controversies below)

remove, pointed out in text anyway

• Sales-oriented culture that pressurises staff into promoting more expensive goods, regardless of suitability, occasionally with misleading or incorrect information and the use of bait-and-switch (see false advertising below)

remove, add note on "bait and switch" in controversies section

• Promotion of goods with misleading or incorrect information (see false advertising below)

remove, mentioned in controversies

• Aggressive promotion of extended warranties (also known as insurance and support packages)[9]

keep, relevant source, but probably needs slight re-wording to point out that warranties are overpriced too. Unfortunately the Independent web site is currently not working, but I'm sure they will fix it soon. I suggest:

Aggressive promotion of and overcharging for extended warranties (also known as insurance and support packages)[10]

• Poor after sales service, especially if an extended warranty is not purchased

true but very difficult to cite specifically, so remove

• Customers are required to use out-sourced, local rate telephone support for hardware issues or premium rate telephone lines (£1/minute, except for set-up which is 75p/minute) for software issues, unless an extended warranty has been purchased [11][12]

keep, well sourced and accurate

• Lack of choice or availability of individual computer components, rendering the store of limited value to more computer savvy consumers
• Overpriced goods when compared with equivalent independent retailer or on-line prices, for all but out-of-the box PC systems

remove, to be fair they are improving and it is also very hard to cite

• Disparity in pricing between PC World stores, the PC World website and other shops owned by the Dixons group [13]

keep. The reference does support this point. It is also evident from simply looking at the PC World web site where they point out the price differences as the "Web exclusive price". Unfortunately as their site changes so much it is very hard to use as a reference for this sort of thing.

• The use of low-priced lures to sell high margin items, for example cheap ink-jet printers but expensive printer cables and ink

I swear there was a reference for this once, but I can't find it now... I guess it will probably have to go. There are loads of forum posts but nothing concrete enough that I can find now.

• Complaints of repairs not being completed (see controversies section)
• Overcharging for repairs and lack of technical competence among technicians [14]

These want merging. They really want to be expanded into a short paragraph though. I suggest:

In 2006 a Which? report found that many repairs at PC World were misdiagnosed, improperly carried out (sometimes leading to data loss) or fixable PCs written off. Pricing also varied dramatically for repair of identical faults. [15]

Similar criticisms have been aimed at other retailers in the DSG group (including Dixons and Currys).

I think this should be kept, as it puts the issues in context and the linked articles provide further details.

In 2005, a Which? ranked PC World joint last for customer satisfaction. [16]

In 2006 PC World attempted to get away from its reputation for having sales staff on up to 20% commission who would therefore use high pressure sales tactics with its "One Team" marketing campaign [17]. This involved adverts in major newspapers claiming staff no longer received commission, however this claim is misleading. Staff now receive a bonus based on the performance of the entire store as a whole (up to £200, over one weeks salary), meaning that pay is still linked to performance. The bonus is also based on other non-monetary metrics, such as customer satisfaction. To compensate the 275 highest earners under the old scheme for reduced bonuses, their basic pay was raised by 16% from around £11,000 to around £13,000 per year.[18]

In response to the perception (true or otherwise) that PC World staff are often young and lacking in knowledge and communications skills, in 2007 a set of e-learning courses called "The Power of Knowledge" were completed by 6,000 staff [19] and the results were incorporated into their Christmas bonuses as an incentive for staff to improve their knowledge.

In January 2008 a survey for Which? revealed that PC World was ranked in the bottom 10 retailers in the UK.[20] [21]

Keep all that, it's properly referenced and relevant. The amounts mentioned re salary are from either linked sourced or PC World employees who posted here. More sources would help. It can be hard to cite internal company policy but it would be good to do so if possible, because the information given adds balance to the article. If it isn't possible, some re-wording will be required I think. Mojo-chan (talk) 11:49, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

This is still unacceptable. We cannot use sources out-of-context to prove one point or another. It is not Wikipedia's place to compile sources to support claims not in those sources. Wikipedia is not the place to promote some view. Claims must be verifiable in reliable references. They must also be balanced according to their prominence among available reliable sources. Claims in the article should directly correspond to what reliable sources report, accurately and in-context. This is basic policy and common sense. We can negotiate on how to best implement these basic principles. However, there should be no debate about whether or not to follow them. I implore you once more to familiarize yourself with our content policy. This version still uses false and out-of-context sourcing, extrapolates claims from single/isolated incidents, etc. Please revise accordingly. Vassyana (talk) 12:24, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Vassyana, I think you are confused. You do not state which source in particular you are referring to in your above comment, but I assume it is the reference to there being pricing disparity between PC World shops and online stores. As I said, better sources are needed but the basic point stands. My guess is that your issue is not so much with the source, as with the contention that the pricing disparity is considered to be criticism. There are lots of forum posts complaining about the issue, but no more reliable (and by that I mean edited and published in reputable publications) sources that I can find. I'll try writing to a consumer publication or newspaper to try and generate something. Maybe write something myself and get it published.

As for your claims about "extrapolates claims from single/isolated incidents", please be more specific.

Also, can I ask, please try to stay calm and use less inflammatory language. It doesn't help anyone. If you just stay level headed and be a bit more specific, we can address your concerns much more easily. Mojo-chan (talk) 16:04, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

The neutrality of this article is disputed? I find that to be something of an understatement. If you look at the pages for other electricals retailers, such as the Comet Group, you see nowhere near as many baseless accusations about "dishonesty" and "false advertising". If we're going to list the faults of a retailer, either list their good qualities or give their competitors the same treatment. The tone of the page makes it seem as though it was written by a competitor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.42.159.13 (talk) 20:09, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on PC World (retailer). 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/20090110062151/http://www.hrmagazine.co.uk:80/news/index.cfm?fuseaction=fulldetails&newsUID=323967fc-cc0e-4771-bc39-56122000bb36 to http://www.hrmagazine.co.uk/news/index.cfm?fuseaction=fulldetails&newsUID=323967fc-cc0e-4771-bc39-56122000bb36

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} 05:09, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on PC World (retailer). 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/20071023195030/http://www.pcworld.co.uk:80/martprd/editorial/technical-support to http://www.pcworld.co.uk/martprd/editorial/technical-support

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:42, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

"PC World (store)" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect PC World (store). The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 July 1#PC World (store) until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. KamranBhatti4013 (talk) 05:07, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

"PC World (Store)" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect PC World (Store). The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 July 1#PC World (Store) until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. KamranBhatti4013 (talk) 05:11, 1 July 2021 (UTC)