Talk:Jasmine Directory

Proposed Edits

Hello there! The entry is about a web directory. Web directories, two decades ago, were used to list references (websites, journals, magazines, etc.) because there were no search engines. Over time some more web directories were founded and some of them exist even today. (this is a topic introduction as required by WP's request edit policy since some editors might not be familiar with the topic). I don't edit the article directly because of my COI, but I'm hoping a volunteer editor agrees this is an improvement and is willing to update it.

Sandboxed version

To save the reviewer's time, I created a sandboxed version which is located here (the markup is corect) and sumarizes the request edit sections. I created the draft to make it easier for the volunteer editor to get through the proposed changes and reference addition.

To fully comply with any and all of Wikipedia's policies I am aware of, in the above proposed draft I have removed all the references that fall under WP:PAYWALL to avoid any WP:VERIFY issues, added the proposed WP:INDEPENDENT and WP:RS (in my opinion) sources highlighted in my edit request, further improved the WP:NPOV, added two archives as per WP:WAYBACK requires for dead references, sumarised the reliable negative feedback as well (e.g. "a TNT Magazine reviewer found it "very traditional" and "tad simplistic" with an "old looking interface".) with WP:PARAPHRASE in mind. I also stubbed the article since, in my opinion, is kind of short righn now and is capable of expansion.

It is my intention that the final article will be non-advertorial in nature, and populated with verifiable third-party citations. All edits, input, and recommendations from Wikipedia's editing community are warmly welcomed. Robertgombos (talk) 11:20, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

If the volunteer editor feels like ignoring the above sandboxed markup and going through each of the below reference, the gesture be much appreciated and welcomed.

I'd appreciate if anyone could take a look at these references and add them to the live article as additional references. In my opinion, the article is neutral and coincise enough and it wouldn't get better by adding more text, however, feel free to modify it.

A few secondary sources

These references should be added to the existing statements accordingly, as they're all are secondary sources to help improve the article's notability:

• The first one is an article written/published by Daily News Egypt which contain a few paragraphs about the directory.
• The London Economic.
• An article with a comprehensive description by TNT (magazine)
• A detailed article via PakWired news site.
• Cifnews article (in Chinese). I used Google translate. I know nothing about this specific news portal, however, it seems quite popular in China. Somebody could provide a good trans-title=?. Solved via the Teahouse.
• A few paragraph mention in The Good Men Project.
• A few paragraph describtion on Kikolani.com, an industry specific publication.
• More information backing up some of the existing statements.

References

Dedicated Reviews/Secondary sources

These references, may be added as additional references as well. All of them come from industry specific publications as per "reviews are generally secondary sources if they provide information beyond a basic description":

• An article about the topic on Social Implications.
• A dedicated review on Web Directory List
• Another review by Search Engine Colossus.

References

Beside these references there are a lot of other references but they seem to be trivial.

Proposed aggregated reference to an existing statement

We have "In 2013 and 2014, Jasmine Directory was rated and awarded eight times by Ken Anderson – former DMOZ meta editor and owner and operator of the Magic City Morning Star – in his "Top Ten Web Directories", where 90 general web directories were reviewed quarterly. The directory was assessed in five areas including aesthetics, size, intuitiveness, quality and usefulness." - The 8 reviews are all available by accessing a single archive (we should avoind listing all 8 separate reviews) here.

References

Proposed paragraph addition under the Reception section

In 2016, the directory obtained a score of 5 in a rating session conducted by the Association of Internet Research Specialists - AOFIRS and published in the Internet Information Resource Book where search engines, web directories, online archives and online databases have been rated on a scale from 1 to 5+.

References

Note: The Association of Internet Research Specialists is a self-regulatory association formed under the Charter of Associations granted by the Government of Canada. A Unified Platform that Delivers, Training, Education, Certification, and critical knowledge for Professional Online Research. Source

Reference accuracy fix + replacing with its archive

The paragraph "Moz had assigned Jasmine Directory a Domain Authority of 60/100, the Page Authority of its index page 67/100, MozRank of 6.81, and a MozTrust of 6.64. Its Majestic Trust Flow is 59, and the Citation Flow is 49." seems to refer to the latest review which took place on December 29 and December 30, 2014. (source).

Therefore, for more accuracy, and to fix the dead URL adding its archive, it should be changed to:

As of December 2014 Moz had assigned Jasmine Directory a Domain Authority of 60/100, a Page Authority of 67/100, MozRank of 6.81, and a MozTrust of 6.64. Its Majestic Trust Flow was 59, and the Citation Flow value was 49.

The {{cn}} tag may be removed since the reference covers each piece of the statement.

References

Proposed adding archive.org archives to dead (404) references

• http://webdirectoryreviews.org/interviews/jasmine/ it should be added it's archive: https://web.archive.org/web/20170930103209/http://www.webdirectoryreviews.org:80/interviews/jasmine/

Proposed disambiguation fix

The Danny Sullivan internal link should be replaced with Danny Sullivan because the second one is the founder of Search Engine Watch and Search Engine Land. Although, probably it has no relevance this mention in the paragraph's context context so it might be removed as well.

Stubbing

Probably the entry might be a candidate for stubbing. If so, the {{web-stub}} can be added as per WP:STUB.

Thanks! Robertgombos (talk) 22:34, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Edit Request

• 1. In the "Operation and structure" section we have "...however, inclusion is not guaranteed if the suggested resources do not comply with the editorial guidelines". This statement is referenced by a primary resource only (the directory's guidelines page).

I propose to add this secondary reference as well to backup the primary one. Here's the markup:

<ref name="AddMe">{{cite web|title=What's The Purpose Of A Web Directory In 2017? (Reviewing Jasmine Directory)|url=https://www.addme.com/blog/2017/15/web-directory-2017/|website=AddMe.com|accessdate=24 May 2018|date=15 December 2017}}</ref>

• 2. Also, in the "Reception" section we have:

"According to information posted on the Social Implications blog, Jasmine Directory appeared to be compliant with Google's general guidelines as of February 2018." - this statement was made based on the Social Implications article which was written in 2018.

Since the AddMe reference publication date was in December 2017, and it says "So, in my opinion, Jasmine Directory [...] is more user oriented in so many ways and Google compliant as well" the "According to the information posted on the Social Implications blog, Jasmine Directory appeared to be compliant with Google's general guidelines as of February 2018." should be changed somehow to reflect AddMe's point of view. Probably, (although, maybe my version sounds weird):

"According to information posted on the AddMe and Social Implications blog, Jasmine Directory appeared to be compliant with Google's general guidelines as of December 2017 and February 2018." or as the editor finds it suitable.

I propose to add the corresponding markup (which may be used later if needed)

<ref name="AddMe" />

before the Social Implication one (if we take them chronologically it makes sense).

• 3. There are a lot of information in the article. If the volunteer editor feels like this reference could further improve the Jasmine Directory entry, please feel free add more content to the article with NPOV in mind. I appreciate the time and effort. Thanks!

Note about the reference: the proposed reference is a full coverage article written by Addme.com's (founded in 1996) editorial staff. By browsing other articles written by them, we may conclude their vast knowledge in the online seach and web directory sector. As for their reliability, they have a quite impressive coverage (in books and Google Scholar resources. Robertgombos (talk) 11:34, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Reply 24-MAY-2018

Partially implemented

1. I clarified the text in the article to show that the claim made in the Social Implications blog regarding the 'general guideline compliance' was "as of February 2018".
2. The reference originating from the search engine submission and optimization service AddMe was not added to the article. A source's secondary nature is determined in part by the relationship that the source has to the object of the claim. As the post from AddMe is effectively anonymous, a secondary source-type relationship cannot be definitively asserted. .spintendo  15:59, 24 May 2018 (UTC)  

Thanks, Spintendo! Robertgombos (talk) 16:11, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

So, what's going on?

@A Train, Anachronist, The Transhumanist, Alexandru M., Justlettersandnumbers, and Cartoon network freak: - calling you if you have a minute for an opinion

Regarding the edits that might excalate to a small scale issue which nobody wants. From a minor edit done by The Transhumanist created a new section in which he displayed the 14 categories of Jasmine Directory, all linking to Wikipedia inner main articles. Justlettersandnumbers, reverted in good faith the edit because it wasn't referenced. Later, The Transhumanist added back the section, referencing it.

Here are a few reliable sources stating there are 14 categories (so... let's put 3 refs just to prove that there are indeed 14 categories...):

1. "The Jasmine Directory is divided into 14 categories based on areas and topics, and these main categories are then divided into subcategories; each category contains a complete description with pictures associated with that category." - CifNews
2. "The website is available in English hence it reaches a vast audience. As far as I can see, by browsing through its fourteen categories, its editorial team added educational and governmental related resources (websites) as well many others. In almost every category there are listed resources pointing towards related Wikipedia articles, organizations, news sites, magazines. Obviously, there are resources suggested by their users as well." - PakWired
3. “Jasmine Directory is a 9-year-old web directory which has grown in popularity over the last decade. It has 13 topical categories [...] They also have a regional category with mainly manually selected listings although by browsing it we found quite a few paid listings as well. since 13+1=14, it's fair to conclude that there are 14 categories indeed. - Social Implications
4. + the existing one.

Alexandru M. added two new references, Baltimore Post-Examiner and The New Indian Express and probably since during the current AfD there was a Keep consensus (admin closure, A Train) along with a huge discussion which included Anachronist as well, removed the COI and Notability tag. Justlettersandnumbers, reverted Alexandru M.'s actions as well, also in good faith, reverted his edits and removed a reference which was re-added by Alexandru M.' by referencing another statement. Both contain comprehensive information about the topic (as well as more resources that I'll highlight). Both references contain comprehensive information about the topic, nor just a mention.

As far as I know, in theory, when we place a tag, we are strongly recommended that the tagging editor initiate a discussion (generally on the article's talk page), to support the placement of the tag. If the tagging editor failed to do so, or the discussion is dormant, the template can be removed;. Most of the times when I'm tagging a page I leave a note on the talk page containing a tip on how to fix the problem or even I reference some statements if I feel the topic has chances to survive. This never happened. Given the fact that I own Jasmine Directory (my COI is displayed everywhere possible and I made it clear during the AfD as well) I made (and I always will) use of the Edit Request process.

Please, go through the edit history [1]. Did I touched the article? No. It was ce/cleaned/reviewed by independent editors and another admin? Yes. As for "It may require cleanup to comply with Wikipedia's content policies, particularly neutral point of view." - several independent editors edited the article. Is there anything non-neutral in the article and each and every editor/administrator missed? Could anyone read the article again, and delete/modify any potential sentence/statement that might carry the slitest subjective POV?

• When the issue has been adequately addressed; (was a AfD a consensus?, by undergoing so many intependent edits was the issue addressed?)
• The #6 rule from the When to remove a tag says: "If the maintenance template is of a type that requires support but is not fully supported. Some neutrality-related templates, such as COI (associated with the conflict of interest guideline) and POV (associated with the neutral point of view policy), strongly recommend that the tagging editor initiate a discussion (generally on the article's talk page), to support the placement of the tag. If the tagging editor failed to do so, or the discussion is dormant, the template can be removed;". (the tags were places on April 18, and the AfD which is a consensus was closed). So...

And, as for the notability tag: I spent my day to pull out the most reliable listed (one isn't I think but I'll do an Edit Request) sources and made a table, exported it as PDF - to make it easier for everyone to check. It has 5 pages and contains excepts proving that every sentence from the article can be refferd at least 2-3 times if that's what the community wants. I selected 10 resources (news, magazines and industry specific trustworthy websites). In the second column I pasted from the live article which statements are referenced:

You may download the file from HERE

If you have a few minutes, download it to view it properly because I made the table on A3 landscape files. Again, those refereces are added (and will always be) to the live article via Edit Requests. Using my common sense, a Keep closure Afd is still a consensus but I am always open to wondering if my judgement is correct or not.

I never pinpointed to other web directories references because I am a civilised discussion militant, however, if the current news/magazines and industry specific coverage is an issue than we should AfD or sd ALL web directory related articles...

I am not trying to game the system, I am really eager to learn new things and procedures (no, I'm not on Wikipedia for this article as you all can see in my edit history (reviewing, patrolling, fighting vandalism, creating new art related content, reffing, improving etc). Oh, by the way, today I just managed to get one my photography related articles, Low-key photography , to GA status and nominated it for FA. Wish me luck! ). Thank you! Robertgombos (talk) 15:17, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

By the way The_Transhumanist I made a table out of your list. If you or anyone else consider it useful, go ahead and replace it. And don't forget to add the highlighted reffs.

Arts & Humanities	Leisure & Travel
Business & Finance	News & Politics
Computers & Technology	People & Society
Health & Fitness	Recreation & Sports
Home & Garden	Regional
Internet & Marketing	Science & Reference
Kids & Teens	Shopping & E-commerce

As a final note, I know how some volunteers see COI but and I respect everyone's decision... but we have rules and I consider myself a civil and grown up man, and I respected all the required procedures.

P.S. Soz for any grammar mistakes or typos. Robertgombos (talk) 15:19, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Content removal 14 June 2020

The summary from probably good faith edit [2], incorrectly marked as WP:MINOR, indicated the the remover had a conflict of interest on that content. The archived content of the source [3] indicates a passing mention that was possibly over non-neutrally promoted (by hyping but not mentioning secondary). Because of that (and possibly other reasons), I have currently chosen to let the removal stand. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 22:50, 14 June 2020 (UTC)