Talk:Geek Squad

Staff

The staff section needs to go. It's an advertisement and nothing else.

Agreed, especially since it's presented as a list.69.181.197.214 (talk) 06:46, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I believe the staff section provides important information to consumers--the fact that there are NO certification requirements for technicians. I'll admit to being biased due to a VERY bad experience with Best Buy in general and Geek Squad in particular. 24.182.163.72 (talk) 23:52, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Geek Squad Locations

I would like to propose that entries in this page that refer to Geek Squad being located in FedEx Kinko's stores be amended to read in the past tense as it became official as of March 9, 2008 that the partnership test will end and be pahsed out. This test partnership As I cannot provide the proof at the moment as the document I have is an internal document, I can atest as a Center Technology Specialist for FedEx Kinko's and it will be evident. Metamorphousthe (talk) 23:46, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Covert Operators

Undercover really isn't that bad. Keep it in mind next time you edit the page from our IP. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.192.10.50 (talk) 11:23, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Issues with the article

This article has way too many spelling and grammatical errors.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.213.214.82 (talk)

So fix them? --OnoremDil 22:28, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

This article reads like ad copy.

The article is too opinion based, esp. the controversy section, which shouldn't be implemented into the article except in the links section, despite me agreeing with it or not. Even if I believe every word it says Wikipedia is not an opinion forum; and as such should remain neutral instead of trying to inject negative opinions to counter the positive opinions. This article could use alot of work, making the push towards being neutral instead of leaning heavily as a positive or negative opinion piece. Some examples: Remove controversy section, insert link(s) at bottom. Remove various interjections about the "acheivements" (i.e. GS has served X famous client, etc.) of GS, and provide link(s) at the bottom. This would allow readers to follow the links and pass their own judgement, instead of relying on the judgement of a person who could have (and it is evident in the edits of this page) an overly positive or overly negative image of the business. The page is to inform you on an unbiased level about the business, and not a person's experiences with it, whether it be positive or negative. --Vesper nocte 13:28, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

How is it making Wikipedia an opinion forum... the copyright infringment lawsuit has been reported widely in major newspapers and the competence questions have been also reported to an extent in major media (much to the disgust of bestbuy's corporate who has been editing this article) for corporate gains - we've noted similiar companies that have had lawsuits filed against them - perhaps a re-write of the section but google notability requires inclusion IMHO - would the IP's from their corporate please stop editing without reading this talk page first? -- Tawker 12:44, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Slashdot is a major media outlet? If you can quote me where "major newspapers" have questioned Geek Squad competence I'd LOVE to see it. What some jealous technie nerds post on techie websites does NOT constitute "news." Fact is, Consumer Reports has stated in their look at computer repair that repair companies (including geek squad) have a very high success rate at solving the customer's issues. No one is perfect, especially when you have 12,000 people in a company. Footnoting slahdot is laughable and it SHOULD be deleted.

Whoever edited it last pretty much ripped the agent titles out of there. The titles are one of the fun things about the brand. It appears as though someone from H.R. at Best Buy is being overprotective. Keep the public-facing titles in place, and avoid the internal ones.

Should we have an section dealing with rates/ what GS charges to what the "agent" gets - something to look at I think Tawker 10:18, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Geek Squad precincts in Best Buy stores are also available for servicing or shipping to service items such as appliances, home theater products, and other sorts of electronics that Best Buy sells. Products not purchased at Best Buy can also be taken in to be sent out to repair.

Am I the only one who finds this whole setup incredibly sad?

I believe this article is poorly written and could use improvement. Ajwebb 03:43, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

It is disappointing that Wikipedia allows the companies to completely change the encyclopedia and turn it into an advertising message. I posted some information I discovered about Geek Squad about 5 months ago, but it was completely erased and replaced by current content, most likely by some executive at Best Buy, and it now appears to mirror the content on their website. It's sad that Wikipedia is turning into another advertising medium.

This is additionally sad because this particular company is insulting the tech community. I believe the word defamation is appliciable to this marketing. 156.12.56.236 16:37, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

If you feel something SHOULD be on here, go ahead and throw it up. If it falls under the controversy category, put it there. Label it as 'theory' or whatever. But put it up. - flag it as such in the "Edit summary" so we can easily and quickly dig it back out should someone remove it. Worst case, it'll be put to a vote. Kcbnac 18:32, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

There's a very interesting comment at slashdot, which possibly covers some of the same ground? -Quiddity 01:23, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, it is interesting but I don't know if it fits in a WP entry, possibly we could add something like "former employees have raised concern about Best Buy focusing on sales instead of technical competency" or something like that, but I don't know if that would be NPOV or OR, /. really isn't a tier one source -- Tawker 01:29, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

That would fall under the 'controversy' category. Give it a shot if you think it belongs.Kcbnac 13:45, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Feel free to edit my grammar and citation usage for my addition to the controversy section, as I am not a literary scholar. --AgentUC 15:52, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Just some thoughts on content additions. We could do the services of Geek Squad, and the positions within Geek Squad. We should also talk about Geek Squad City more to create an understanding of what exactly it'll be used for in Geek Squad. Dotuser 07:41, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Some minor edits. What I fail to see is how this page is advertising anything. It's explaining various parts of a company. No where does it push services or elevate Geek Squad's status over other tech service companies. Additionally, rant residue from other websites have no place in what is supposed to be an encyclopedia entry. No offense meant, just my two pennies. JKor 03:08, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd have to disagree on the rant being excluded. It's not just slashdot it's pretty much every tech related website out there. From what I've found in a couple quick searches it sounds like Geek Squad really was a good competent company however after the BestBuy buyout and subsequent expansion it seems like things hit the tube then and it was widely noted. I've seen stuff on digg, slashdot, ars technica, usenet, dslreports etc. I think I saw an article in a local printed paper to that effect as well, lemme dig thru my archives. -- Tawker 12:47, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

As a person who just happened to come by (and made a link correction), I also agreed that this article does not look like an ad. As for view problem, I would keep myself neutral since I'm not from the US. --Samuel Curtis 06:22, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I dont get why everyone wants to add links to articles about how crappy geek squad can be. I have had bad experiences dealing with smaller computer shops locally, i doubt it is an issue of rapid expansion as stated above. Besides If these people are really "techie" they have no excuse to be using geek squad, and if they do and get pissed off about the service its their fault. Secondly the main demo for geek squad seems to be old computer illiterates who don't look up stuff on Wikipedia anyway so it all seems kinda futile. The article reads fine to me, i dont see a bias and i agree with keeping the stuff about the ranks. thats really all that separates them from other techs 174.1.144.63 (talk) 06:57, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Geek Squad History

What is the official history on Geek Squad. When was it bought out by Best Buy.. was it ever publicly traded? I'm having problems finding any information on this company/subsidiary Binarypower 07:23, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, there is some very relevant missing information. I saw somewhere that Best Buy bought Geek Squad in 2002, and this article says Geek Squad was created in 1994. What was its status in the intervening years?--69.151.15.152 (talk) 06:15, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't know how accurate this is, but I'm an in-store tech, and I heard from higher-ups that the "history" is made up by Best Buy as an amusing story. According to them, Geek Squad was never an independent brand, but a rebranding of the Best Buy service department. Maybe this helps in leads, or maybe it's all a wild goose hunt. Mfrisk (talk) 05:50, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

An article in the STRIB with a brief history of Geek Squad http://www.startribune.com/business/88659887.html.

Criticisms, Lawsuits, and other negative content

Geek Squad's reaoning in the Fox News entry regarding the Geek Squad agent that was because it was placed in the first paragraph of the page. This isn't a good place to put something like that. In order to keep with the flow fo the page, we should determine a better position to locate that paragraph. I'm NOT against putting it on the page, but I do think we should discuss where we should place it at on the page. B2bomber81 21:29, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Why take out the "Peep Squad Lawsuit"? It is real history, it really happened. Type in "Geeksquad Shower" into Google and see how many results there are for the same story. I placed this under the other lawsuit, a suitable place for it. jasonr724 19:48, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I think whoever reverted your edit may have been intending to just remove the portion that was at the top of the page. I think the content and location of your entry is fine. I've reverted it and it is back on there. B2bomber81 01:21, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment from 71.141.74.46

I'd like to know why THIS company can have an entry on this website but other companies cannot. This is total bullshit. Make a rule and stick with it. If one company can have a commercial listing then all companies should be able to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.141.74.46 (talk)

It might help if you were more specific...but I'd say that you could find your answers somewhere in WP:CORP and WP:RS. --OnoremDil 02:07, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Whoever started this should see the Wikipedia guideline page Wikipedia:Notability; basically, something has to be notable/famous/well-known enough to have its own Wikipedia page. To put this in perspective, Johnny Depp, an actor, has his own Wikipedia page. Someone could be on their high school's drama club and act in local plays, and, therefore, be considered an actor, as least in some respect, but they shouldn't certainly, based solely on that, have their own Wikipedia article. Or Romeo and Juliet, a play, has its own Wikipedia article. Someone rights a play for a high school English class, but (you know). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.124.128.157 (talk) 19:07, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Nerds on Site is a company serving a wide swath of Canada. I see there's no article, so then I tried Geek Squad, expecting the same, but not surprised entirely to see an entry. They essentially are the same: mobile computer assistance, among other forms of tech support. GBC (talk) 20:18, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

MRI CD

Maybe this article should cite something about the MRI CDs that geek squad uses to fix computers? (Google it for more info) -- Patrick Flynn 06:41, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

The contents of the MRI CD is considered a trade secret under US law. Unless there's a compelling reason to include this information, it should be left out. After all, an IT technician using a compilation CD of diagnostic and repair tools is neither noteworthy nor unusual. Mfrisk (talk) 22:14, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

@Mfrisk we really dont care about the contents. Wikipedia is not about exposing trade secrets, there are other websites for that,it is about its about documenting history.

This article should be about the history of MRI. Questions such as: Was MRI created by the original founders of geeks squad, best buy, or was it a spin off from the Winternals' Emergency Repair Disk Commander deal fallout? Should be addressed in this article. That answer alone would give insite as to why best buy bought geek squad to begin with. There has to be a reason why best buy wanted it, they had to have some asset that they wanted,

not just the geek squad name.  How hard is it to start a computer repair business?  They are literally a dime a dozen.  What made Geek Squad so special?

I believe that MRI was something the founders created, which seperated them from the competition thus making them successful, which eventually lead to Best Buy acquisition.

The MRI CD was created AFTER the acquisition, but it is indeed something that sets Geek Squad apart from the rest of the competition (most other competitors simply use whatever they find on the internet). ReformedArsenal (talk) 14:44, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Geek Squad City

Would someone like to add a section about Geek Squad City? It's said to be the world's largest computer repair facility in Brooks, KY. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.138.40.15 (talk) 02:09:47, August 19, 2007 (UTC)

I too think this article would benefit from information like this. Penman 1701 03:32, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

It may be 4 years late, but I gathered some information from Geek Squad's official site to create a section for Geek Squad City. leeaaro4 17:26 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Companies That No Longer Provide Recovery Discs - A Big Issue

Geek Squad makes these recovery discs for about 60 USD. However, some companies don't tell you that they put recovery disk creation software onto the machine itself good enough so that the average person would know to not buy the Geek Squad Service to create them a recovery disk. Such a company is Gateway. I don't know if this should be mentioned on the gateway article or here, but it's obviously a scam ployed out by best buy not to tell people that Gateway offers a recovery disk creator now that they don't offer recovery disks. 68.185.166.207 (talk) 13:53, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Every PC brand except for Dell come with recovery disc creation software (Dells come with the actual disks or a recovery partition). That said, not all of us Geeks are dishonest about the process. At my precinct we tell our clients that they could make the discs themselves, but we almost always get the sale as we truthfully tell them that the discs will take several hours to burn, and that if their hard drive fails they WILL need them. People are generally lazy enough that they see the value in getting them done rather than putting it off. You wouldn't believe how many people decline the service, saying they'll do it themselves, only to come back a six months later with a dead hard drive and no recovery disks. If you want to talk about scams, point your finger at the computer manufacturers using sub-par components designed to break in two years or less. (68.246.57.183 (talk) 04:01, 23 July 2009 (UTC))

I could equally say that you should also give people a choice (IE: tell them that there are other operating systems, which can be obtained FOR FREE, IE: Linux) about what Operating System they can choose instead of forcing Windows on everyone. Sure, you should also tell them that you can't run everything on linux through its WINE Program, but you can find alternatives out there for Windows programs that you normally pay for. For example, you could say that they can get OpenOffice, which can open almost, if not all, any MS Office document (With the exception of MDB Files.) Please do not bait me into starting a war here. If you reply again with more information, I may as well report both myself and you for violating the NOTAFORUM rule and have this discussion removed. 68.185.166.207 (talk) 04:21, 31 August 2009 (UTC) Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Geek_Squad"

I deleted the previous person's comment for being a dick. And besides, he didn't bother to check his facts. Recovery discs are $29.99, not $60. And if you contact the manufacturer you will be charged between $10 and $30 for a new set - which, if your GS discs fail, will be covered. 98.127.168.159 (talk) 08:31, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Deleted comments re-inserted. Is is regarded as very poor manners to delete another editors comments. This is normally done only in very limited circumstances. Remember No Personal Attacks and CIVILITY. Please challenge their editing in a polite manner. Remember that Wikipedia is based on CONSENSUS and NEUTRALITY --220.101.28.25 (talk) 02:56, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Do you know what the Unfair Sales Act is? We have it in Wisconsin. It causes some prices to be higher than other prices. Yes, it was 60 USD to do it for the machine I was going to buy (a Gateway Laptop.) I bought it, then found out I could have made the recovery disks myself, then I returned it (foolishly I might add.) Feel free to rank me as a jerk and whatnot all you like. But not all states, locations, etc. have the same prices as yours. 24.241.229.253 (talk) 13:36, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

• This is irrelevant to articles on Best Buy/Geek Squad. The most you could do would be to add information about recovery media to some article related to technology OEMs, and the closest would be this list, then Wikilink to that section from a blurb mentioning that Geek Squad offers recovery disc creation among other services. Mfrisk (talk) 22:21, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Controversy Section - Porno Discussion

I made a few tweaks to the porno seek controversy discussion. The sole source for this accusation is a blog article, and so it made a very big deal out of the fact that the founder dared to criticize bloggers in responding to a question unrelated to his presentation. Anyways, it's fine to keep the discussion there, just use more neutral language that I put in rather than the abashed amazement of the blogger article. For the record, I neither work for Geek Squad nor use their service, was just annoyed by the tone of that section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.12.178.189 (talk) 04:20, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Removing notation of closure of Geek Squad Stores

Not only was this entry future-dated, it is also linked to a site that only Geek Squad Agents have access to. I am removing it until further, more substantiated proof is available publicly online. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.200.153.210 (talk) 04:28, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Removed from Controversy

I removed the part about the man trying to pass off a Geek Squad badge as a police badge as it didn't really seem relevant to the article in any way other than the false badge happened to be from this company. 75.111.91.143 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:51, 23 January 2011 (UTC).

Added to Controversy

I added to the section an occurrence where Geek Squad employees used pirated copies from Winternals. I agree with the previous comment. Trying to pass off a Geek Squad badge as a police badge isn't really a problem that is related to the company but more to the individual who tried to pass himself as a police.

leeaaro4 14:58, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Derogitory?

Isn't the word "Geek" generally known to reference obsessive and anti-social people? I mean, doesn't this fall under perpetuating stereotypes? I do mean this seirously, by the way; I havent met anyone who feels this way about the word. But Best Buy seems to not just use the word, but actively dress their people to match the stereotype.

Is this sort of thing generally considerd "Okay"? Because Geeksquad is the only term that is used in such a manner without inciting flames, even though its just as derogitory. Chardansearavitriol (talk) 17:46, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

As someone who use to work for Geek Squad, both in the store and at corporate, I can tell you that the vast majority of Geek Squad employees embrace the term Geek and do not mind it being applied to them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ReformedArsenal (talk • contribs) 12:19, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't think any of the above comments on the issue matter. I mean, are you suggesting that the name of the article and any mention of the "geek" in the aricle be changed? The fact is, "Geek Squad" is their official name, "right"/"politically correct"/"emotionally sensitive" or not. I mean, Chardansearavitriol, I don't think you intentionally meant to, but bringing this up is really againgst Wikipedia:Not a forum, a rule of Wikipedia which basically says that the talk pages for articles exist to talk about ways to discuss how to improve the article and not to discuss the topic of the article in general or your opinions on it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.124.128.157 (talk) 18:40, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

ReformedArsenal Should be Banned From Editing this Page

This user continuously edits this article in a way that marginalizes negative information about Geek Squad while simultaneously attempting to portray the organization in a positive light. Upon inspection, he is an admitted Geek Squad employee. This represents an inherent bias and he should be prohibited from editing this article further.2605:E000:1605:C0C0:A42A:B51D:3BE9:8B2B (talk) 15:10, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

This is a ridiculous claim, none of my edits have shown a bias in any way. Feel free to bring forward your evidence if you wish, my edits in the past year have only ever been to remove unsourced or confidential information that has not been published publically. ReformedArsenal (talk) 18:09, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Please update dead link for reference 11: V C Section 27605 Vehicle Resembling Law Enforcement Vehicle

Reference 11, which links to V C Section 27605 Vehicle Resembling Law Enforcement Vehicle, is a dead link. The current link is as follows:

https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/dmv/?1dmy&urile=wcm:path:/dmv_content_en/dmv/pubs/vctop/vc/d12/c5/a5/27605

Can someone please update this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.168.158.50 (talk) 00:53, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Logo out of date

The geek squad logo has changed, no SVG I can find of the new logo, but it should still be changed when possible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:569:BDC0:5700:F032:DD27:3CE7:7807 (talk) 06:54, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Geek Squad. 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/20070617205019/http://bestbuymedia.tekgroup.com:80/news/section_news.cfm?news_section=1330 to http://bestbuymedia.tekgroup.com/news/section_news.cfm?news_section=1330
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121008034502/http://www.startribune.com/entertainment/tv/11921991.html to http://www.startribune.com/entertainment/tv/11921991.html

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 20:02, 8 January 2017 (UTC)