Talk:Online auction

Constructive deletionists and feedback please
We are currently working on this page as part of a University assignment and for all the deletes that are likely to be made, please can you give us constructive feedback on why you have done this so that we can fix issues and refine our entries. We also welcome you to get involved on making this article better. Thanks in advance --Craigjp88 (talk) 19:46, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

What is left to do
This talk is aimed directly at those I am working with on my University course but again all are welcome to get involved with us, we'd love that as it helps us and it helps Wikipedia. I am going to continue adding to the entry regarding the history of online auctions, perhaps moving on to current practices and then I'm going to add more in depth entries on the different auction models that are used that I entered. So English/Dutch/First-price Sealed-bid/Second-price sealed-bid. What about you guys Callum, Carl, Sam? I think what we have got so far is a good start and it would be good to keep the Wikipedia community who visit here informed on what our intentions are. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Craigjp88 (talk • contribs) 18:47, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I could expand upon the reverse auction entry that I put in, but I'm not sure how much it would be worthwhile as there is a seperate page for it that I've been working on. Also what else could we add into this page? Carl Stanyard (talk) 20:29, 18 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I think it would be good to expand on some of the topics there, and it would be good to get some images up on the page as well. However I was unaware of you working on a different page so maybe expanding the reverse auction here is not in your best interest. --Craigjp88 (talk) 20:37, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

I have added a see also section to the page. It was mostly taken from the online auction business model page but I have removed some of the links that I didn't think were relevant or ones that are already addressed in this page. However, we might want to look at incorperating some of those links into the page with their own sections like the unique bid auction. I think we should also look at going on to all the pages that we have linked from this article and making sure that they all link back here too. Callum.moore (talk) 05:02, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Comments
Here are a few pointers to carry on improving the article:


 * References should go after punctuation, rather than before (this is the opposite of academia, but a consensus exists here to do it this way: WP:REFPUNCT)
 * You need to make sure that everything is referenced. You should try to use academic sources wherever possible - google books can be useful to track down more general references - if you can't find see the whole text online, hopefully you can find the real book somewhere using worldcat.
 * This article previously redirected to online auction business model - it looks as if you are duplicating some of the content there. Consider being bold and taking anything from that article and adding it here, making that redirect here (this seems like a better title to me).
 * Use cite doi to link to papers - this gives the references a uniform appearance and links to online copies.

Let me know if you don't understand any of this. Cheers SmartSE (talk) 12:07, 19 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Oh and this isn't a reliable source - you need to replace it. This paper is very highly cited, so you should certainly read it and reference it, if it is useful. Can you find any figures for how what the value of online auctions is now, and how this has changed over time? This would be useful for adding to the legalities section too, to discuss fraud in auctions. SmartSE (talk) 12:20, 19 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Huge thanks for this feedback, I will get to work on fixing some of the problems later on this evening including fixing the unreliable source and reading the papers suggested! I will also begin moving content across from the former redirect page and setting up a redirect. Thanks again! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Craigjp88 (talk • contribs) 12:49, 19 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Seconding this thank you! Much appreciated and has really helped in pointing us the right direction. Love the idea of being bold and just doing it ;) --spamoom (talk) 13:22, 19 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Is this redirect going to happen then? Having just had another look at the online auction business model page it is pretty apparent this page has already exceeeded it in content and relevance. I mean there is a lot of useless stuff on that page and if you want to find any information about online auctions you dont initially think to search for the business model. Also as someone put on the talk page there most of the auction sites are actually operating on a brokerage business model. Callum.moore (talk) 15:06, 19 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I have just Been through and moved all of the references to outside of the punctuation.
 * It also looks like pages have been linked too many timnes. The manual of style says that generally pages should only be linked to once and there are 3 or 4 links to the auction page just in the first paragraph. It also says that linking to standard things like places should be avoided. I would recommend reading this section MoS: Overlinking and underlinking. Callum.moore (talk) 15:20, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Some things to add?
Hello. So as I've been referencing and looking for more material on the auction types it seems there is a large study on the effect of minimum bids, reserve pricing and buyout pricing on on-line auctions. I was wondering, if someone was struggling for content maybe you could add a section on these as there really is a lot to go on. Here is a list of possible articles that could help:


 * Auctions on the internet: What's being auctioned, and how?
 * Managing online auctions: Current business and research issues

The two above I know specifically refer to these things, however here is a pretty large list of other links you can have a look through for the sake of referencing!


 * http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0165176501004384
 * http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=384160
 * http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0304405X9800021X
 * http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/freeabs_all.jsp?arnumber=926822
 * http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/freeabs_all.jsp?arnumber=769429
 * http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/4133995?uid=3738032&uid=2&uid=4&sid=55891030413
 * http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1467-6451.00122/abstract;jsessionid=02FC48AB16F6DE725E4C808BC5DC378C.d03t01?systemMessage=Wiley+Online+Library+will+be+disrupted+17+March+from+10-14+GMT+%2806-10+EDT%29+for+essential+maintenance&userIsAuthenticated=false&deniedAccessCustomisedMessage=
 * http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022053105000414
 * http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1567422306000202
 * http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/30040539?uid=3738032&uid=2&uid=4&sid=55891030413
 * http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0899825699907807
 * http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1756-2171.2007.tb00072.x/abstract
 * http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.3.8580&rep=rep1&type=pdf
 * http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167923605001600
 * http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1028063
 * http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167923601001075
 * http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-0262.2002.00435.x/abstract
 * http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167923605000473
 * http://pubs.amstat.org/doi/abs/10.1198/073500106000000477 --Craigjp88 (talk) 09:18, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

'See also' Section
I believe this should be replaced with a breakdown and short description with a link to the relevant article rather than just a list of links as I believe this is the 'main' auction page it should contain a descriptive overview rather than just a list of links. --spamoom (talk) 19:49, 20 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I think some of the things in the see also section are so loosely related to online auctions it would be silly to include infromation about them on this page. Like I see no real reason why we should include a section for auto auction when it is pretty self explainitory but as it is related to online auctions we have covered our bases with that link. Callum.moore (talk) 09:30, 21 March 2012 (UTC)


 * After looking at other articles, it seems that the 'see also' section is quite common - ignore me =] --spamoom (talk) 17:06, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: The Editing Process
— Assignment last updated by Mgbanie (talk) 20:14, 8 November 2022 (UTC)