Talk:Deal-of-the-day/Archive 1

Spam?
It seems useful, interesting, and not in breach of anti-spam guidelines to list the major retailers that use a certain business model. Do others disagree? Stevage 06:13, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * See WP:EL and WP:NOT -- specifically, Wikipedia is not a directory, nor an external link repository. I think the best course of action here would be to include wikilinks to the retailers here who have Wikipedia articles. --Czj 06:20, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) "Links normally to be avoided" at WP:EL states "'Links to sites that primarily exist to sell products or services. For example, instead of linking to a commercial bookstore site, use the 'ISBN' linking format, giving readers an opportunity to search a wide variety of free and non-free book sources.'"

Also see WP:NOT. John Reaves (talk) 06:21, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


 * My reading of that rule has always been that we don't provide pages of links to "random" sites: for a page about cameras, we don't create a huge list of links to sites that sell cameras. Or sites that sell photography courses or whatever. This is a little different: the list is actually *about* the retailers themselves. It wouldn't actually matter much if their websites weren't linked, but it would seem petty not to. What we're saying is bitsdujour is a retailer that uses the model we're describing. We're not saying, "Go to bitsdujour.com to learn more about...". See thi difference?


 * As to "includ[ing] wikilinks to the retailers here who have Wikipedia articles", it's a bit of a catch-22. Most of those retailers should probably have articles about them, but I don't want to get into that. We could make them redlinks if you prefer. Stevage 06:57, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Despite the wording, it's still an excessive list that advertises for the sites. Do any of the sites have Wikipedia articles?  John Reaves (talk) 07:06, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't follow your reasoning. Are you implying that it has been decided that none of those sites *should* have articles? There are plenty of article-worthy entities in the world that don't have articles - I wouldn't go using the absence of an article as evidence for anything. As for the list itself, see Woot (retailer) - that's where the list came from. I hardly see how listing retailers that use a certain business model is advertising. How can Wikipedia have good coverage of electronic commerce if we can't even refer to actual individual retailers by name? Stevage 09:24, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I'd prefer to see the list maintained here as it is obviously not spam. But to satisfy the wikitcally correct amongst us you might decide to link to an external page that reviews/ranks/discusses these site - Google suggests squidoo.com/onedealaday/. Pcb21 Pete 11:13, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * No, I was saying we should just link to one (or two) of the cites, being your to cite them as examples. I was just asking if any of the sites had Wikipedia articles, you're looking too much into this. John Reaves (talk) 16:13, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Observer --atd42 (talk) 18:00, 22 September 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.249.202.65 (talk)

other buissness models
I try to dig if there exists other models, but there is no further link, the link given under "business model" is not related to that type of business, Also categories are not satisfactory.

I don^t know this is the right place but article should be expanded to cover whole range and types of this business model. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Erkintek (talk • contribs) 11:31, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps there should be a section for daily deal aggregators - sites like http://thedealer.com.au, http://yipit.com and others. These are booming, as well as operators and certainly have a place in the market. Thoughts?M0z (talk) 22:19, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Expanding on the article
I would like to expand on this article with a variety of new sections. This genre of websites is gaining importance in the online retail community and I think it's important that's a more extensive resource for the term. Terms such as "Groupon" and "LivingSocial" have very expansive articles and I am surprised by how little is written about this "Deal of the Day" genre.

Foremost, I would like to focus on the History section adding a timeline of when specific sites came about and noting trends of around what time they all started. Other sections I believe would be relevant are:
 * Genres (i.e. clothing, services, furniture, etc.)
 * Structure of Sites/Process (do they tailor deals to individual preferences, is there a minimum number of users that have to purchase to redeem the deal)
 * Demographics (age/gender/geographic location of users), Financial Aspect (current growth in stock market, recent IPO's etc.)
 * Spotlight of the most successful Deal of the Day websites with their own section on the definition page (Groupon, LivingSocial, etc.)

There has been a lot of coverage on the topic and I do not foresee having a problem finding references. Bethjaco (talk) 20:51, 21 September 2011 (UTC) DanielleSHammer (talk) 20:52, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I think it would be helpful to include a list of popular one deal a day sites categorized under the type of merchandise that they sell. For instance, fashion, travel, furniture ect. DanielleSHammer (talk) 16:14, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I've gone ahead and identified current issues with the article that need to be addressed. Generally, I would simply fix the issues myself and move on to the next article or project. That said, in a learning environment, I simply thought to give you a heads up. The first thing that you need to focus on is research. Rather than expanding the article and then hoping to find references that support the additions, compile your resources first to determine what can feasibly be added to the article. You will want to stay away from expanding the article to include an overview or spotlight of "most successful" sites, since this can be subjective and outside of a neutral point of view. It is also deemed promotional, as well as violating WP:NOTDIR. At the most, I would recommend providing a list of these services within a "See also" section. We have a category of DOTD services which can be found here: . In article lists, we only include subjects that already have articles on Wikipedia. This specific article focuses on DOTD ecommerce concept. The websites about the services themselves, already have articles. We don't want an article here that duplicates what is in other articles. I would also recommend moving the article from the current title to Deal of the Day (ecommerce). Try to focus on developing and expanding a history and outlook of the DOTD concept itself, rather than various DOTD businesses. About your idea of genre (products), compile research from several notable businesses to determine the global percentage of product availability and sales through DOTD ecommerce. You might consider presenting this data in prose form, while including a graph according to products and demographics (age, gender, ethnicity, geography, etc.) These are simply ideas. Compile your research first. Stay away from individual businesses and focus on the DOTD ecommerce/concept. Let me know if you have questions. Best regards,  Cind.   amuse  (Cindy) 22:49, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I am going to move the " Online Forums" section to the bottom of the page. As mentioned in the section, most deal or the day sites no longer feature a forum on their websites. As a result, I think that other sections are more important and should be highlighted first. DanielleSHammer (talk) 23:16, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Cindy for your suggestions. We agree that the spotlight section was erring on the side of promotional and is less relevant in this article. We will change the title from " Deal of the Day" to Deal of the Day (ecommerce), once we have all of our research and thoughts compiled together. We were also wondering if a section on " Tips for Getting Your Deal of the Day Items" would be relevant. These tips would include: Log on early, set up email notifications, fill your shopping cart, search by size, and use the wait list. Thanks for you help- Danielle DanielleSHammer (talk) 23:20, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

We have included a " See All" section that links to the deal of the day services. This wikipedia pages has a list of deal of the day websites and the links to their wikipedia pages. DanielleSHammer (talk) 00:47, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Hey there! The link that you added under the "See also" section is a category. If you look at the bottom of the article itself, you will see the categories are listed below and you don't want that duplicated. An alternate choice is to list the articles that are listed in the category. Don't include a "Tips" section, since that runs into WP:NOTGUIDE, which instructs editors to refrain from creating instruction guides, Internet guides, or how-to sections and articles of any kind. Feel free to ask questions anytime! (No, seriously.) Cind.   amuse  (Cindy) 01:31, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Hey Cindy- sorry for the oversight. We updated "See Also" to list the articles. Thanks for being a resource and we'll be sure to take you up on your offer! Bethjaco (talk) 01:41, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I have started to edit the introduction or opening paragraph. I have included the mention of flash sales and added some important information that explains the relationship between retailers and consuhttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:One_deal_a_day&action=edit&section=3mers in the deal of the day website business. I will update when I have more information. DanielleSHammer (talk) 15:35, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I added a citation to the previously bare Affiliates section. I also elaborated a little on the aggregation sites. This genre of websites is gaining a lot of popularity and venture capital funding so it might be worth expanding on further. Bethjaco (talk) 17:39, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I changed the name of the "Marketing small businesses with daily deals" to "Marketing Businesses with Daily Deals". Although small businesses/startups are primary beneficiaries to this this trend, the "marketing" purpose of being featured on a deal of the day site applies to all businesses. The reference that was previously used in this section did not seem to meet Wikipedia's standards. When I expanded on the section I included citations from a scholarly article and an article from the NYT. I also plan on adding a section on "Profitability for Businesses with Daily Deals" before this section which will drive in the point that while businesses do break even, the most value comes from exposure value. Bethjaco (talk) 17:48, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Please make sure to review Wikipedia's Manual of Style, along with all the links in the issues indicated at the top of the article. Unfortunately, many of the changes that have been made to the article are not in compliance with the encyclopedic guidelines. The "references" used for comments #5, 7, 9, and 10 are not proper citations. No sources are provided. Generally, much of what you have included would be deleted or others would go through the article and clean it up. Please don't include any content that is not support by a reliable and independent source. This is considered original research and can be immediately removed by any editor. That said, I realize that this is a learning process for you. More than happy to help, but don't want to overstep with the coursework. If you need further assistance, you can either hit me up or check out some resources and links on my userpage. Please note that the Wikimedia Foundation has a Global and U.S. Education Program that your school and/or professor may want to consider incorporating into the course. Let me know if you have questions. Best regards, Cind.   amuse  (Cindy) 00:34, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi Cindy- I just went through the article and created proper citations. Your page had a lot of great resources so thank you for that! I noticed that a few of the existing references had link rot so I cleared that up as well. I also tried to find more legitimate sources for some of the claims that had been made. I am concerned about the "Newsletters" section. The references that were used are just instructional articles from Online Marketing companies. I looked around and there doesn't seem to be anything published on the subject so in my opinion I think the section should be deleted. I know Danielle also mentioned deleting the Online forums section because its kind of irrelevant and there are no sources to back it up. Bethjaco (talk) 17:36, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

In the introduction section, many of the edits were constructed with my general knowledge of the topic. For example, " deal of the day sites are by invitation in the mail and by email." Why do they need to be cited? DanielleSHammer (talk) 14:05, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Writing from our own base of knowledge is referred to as original research. All article content has to be based on reliable and independent sources. Let me know if you have other questions! Best regards,  Cind.   amuse  (Cindy) 14:28, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Foreign interwiki links
I have having trouble linking the " Jacques-Antoine Granjon" page onto the Deal of the Day (ecommerce) page. The site exists, but is in French. Is this the reason that It cannot be linked with the page? Here is the link the the wikipedia page- http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacques-Antoine_Granjon DanielleSHammer (talk) 23:37, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia in any language cannot be used as a reference. Best regards,  Cind.   amuse  (Cindy) 15:35, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Graphs and images

 * I also just added an Industry Outlook section. Something weird is going on with the last sentence and there's a blue box around it. I thought it could be from an open reference tag but I can't seem to fix it. Any experience with this? I also had a question about using photos. There's a chart about industry growth from a Business Insider article that I'd like to use but when I read the Wikipedia manual it said I couldn't upload anything that was licensed. Here's the link to picture. http://www.businessinsider.com/group-buying-charts-2011-9 Could i upload it if I cite it somehow? Bethjaco (talk) 17:36, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * An extra space at the beginning of the paragraph was causing the problems. Mateinsixtynine (talk) 22:18, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The chart is copyrighted material. If you want to use it, you will need to request permission from Dan Frommer (email address is provided at the website). Here's more information on requesting material Requesting copyright permission and Example requests for permission. Let me know if you need help. Best regards,  Cind.   amuse  (Cindy) 15:23, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I also have graphs that would be helpful in the demographics section, but like Beth, I am unsure if the graphs are licensed and appropriate for the wikipedia page. Here's the link the the graphs. http://www.emarketer.tv/Article.aspx?R=1008090 and http://www.emarketer.tv/Report.aspx?code=emarketer_200074DanielleSHammer (talk) 00:26, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * All material is copyrighted. U.S. laws do not require copyright holders to indicate in any manner that their content is copyrighted, in order to forbid reproduction. If you want to use any material that you find that you have not created yourself, you will need to request permission from the copyright holder. In the case of http://www.emarketer.tv, contact the website directly. Here's more information on requesting material Requesting copyright permission and Example requests for permission. Let me know if you need help. Best regards,  Cind.   amuse  (Cindy) 15:35, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Name change
The article has been changed to " One Deal a Day (ecommerce)" per the suggestion of Cindy. DanielleSHammer (talk) 23:14, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I tried to change the name of the article as suggested, but was told not to by another wikipedia editor. I received the following message: Please don't create a new version of an existing article, please work on the original article where it is already located. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 23:01, 2 October 2011 (UTC). DanielleSHammer (talk) 14:33, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * In order to change the name of an article, you have to "move" the article, rather than create a second article with a preferred name. First, wait until the Deal of the Day (ecommerce) redirect is deleted. Then... Up at the top of the page, you will see a button that says "Move". Click on that, then type in the new title. Add the reason "To provide concise title in accordance with capitalization and disambiguation guidelines." Then click "Enter". If you need help, let me know. I would do it myself, but you know... all that school and learning stuff and stepping on toes mumbo jumbo. I'm here if you need me though. ;) Best regards,  Cind.   amuse  (Cindy) 15:16, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your help Cindy! I followed your instructions and moved the page. DanielleSHammer (talk) 21:55, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Yay! Too cool for school! (Sorry, couldn't resist.) ;) Best regards,  Cind.   amuse  (Cindy) 22:20, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Observing
I think the additions you have made are really good. As next steps, it might be helpful to make the changes that wikipedia marked at the top of your page about it's citing and interface so that it follows the standards to a wikipedia page more closely. But other than that, I think you guys are doing a great job, and it's awesome you are able to collaborate with someone who is familiar with the site! Cusb09 (talk) 01:58, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

The edits that you have made so far to this Wikipedia page is great. It's even better that you guys can collaborate with other Wikipedia users to make this process easier. There is a lot of great information and I think the additions that you have made about flash sales and affiliates is a great addition. Good work! Msackler (talk) 16:37, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Great job so far! Maybe try and find more resources by researching woot.com and their history? Perhaps there are news articles documenting the start of the "One deal, one day" online marketing strategy. Additionally, I'm sure this kind of strategy has been used in the past, offline. Maybe including some history about companies that didn't have websites but still used this deal-strategy could be useful too! Amonina (talk) 17:17, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Wow! You guys have made some real progress! I agree that you should find more resources and a few more news articles. I really am surprised by the amount of communication you've had with other wikipedia users- what a great way to get advice from people familiar with the way wikipedia works. atd42 (talk) 13:21, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Like pretty much everybody else has said, the article looks great. Also, I think it's great that you got to work with other users on improving the article...what a great learning experience! I still think the page is missing something however: was there a deal a day strategy before the internet? I understand that this is somewhat out of the scope of the project due to the wikipedia page being focused on ecommerce, but it might be interesting to look into! Akk53 (talk) 16:00, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I like everyone would like to say the page looks great. A few more sources and this will be an awesome article.P0PP4B34R732 (talk) 22:23, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

The History section
I just read this article, and the History section sounds to me like unsourced spam. Who says that planetlulu.com was first? Given that it's not a "daily deal" kind of site, I'd love to check out the ref on that. It's worth noting that dealoftheday.com was first registered in 1997, for instance. Dori ☾Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 01:01, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Maybe, maybe not. Either way, planetlulu definitely does not deserve a paragraph to itself.  Mateinsixtynine (talk) 01:23, 30 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree, and now it doesn't. If someone wants to add it back in, please feel free to do so—with appropriate references. Dori ☾Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 01:27, 30 June 2012 (UTC)