Talk:Social commerce/Archives/2014

Modify the structure and add new contents

I would like to improve the structure of this topic. Some categories of this topic can be merge into one; some could be further explained with further introduction. I propose to modify the overall scope, add the timeline category of social commerce, and include a brief introduction for each of the notable social commerce sites as business examples. This enables the readers to get a rough idea quickly when they browse this topic first time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sylvia198899 (talk • contribs) 19:24, 7 November 2014 (UTC) Sylvia198899 (talk) 19:24, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree with the idea that this article is poor organized and a logic structure should be established to better illustrate the concept. There should be at least a formal definition paragraph and a history or origin paragraph at the start of the article. Besides, the current Elements of Social Commerce section is poor written and has no explicit reference. The expression in this section should be modified into a objective or narrative tone and those three reference papers listed in the reference section should be also linked to each point.Adamwang0705 (talk) 01:57, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

The Notable social commerce sites subsection and the current Measuring Social Commerce Success section are actually two different topics. I suggest to merge the content of Measuring Social Commerce Success into the introduction part and bring the Notable social commerce sites section into the first level section in the article with some brief information about each site. I also noticed that the first link in the External links section is already invalid and should be removed.Adamwang0705 (talk) 02:07, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Besides, some of the current subtitles are relatively ambiguous and cannot properly depict the contents. For example, 'The 6 C's of Social Commerce' makes the readers confused and have no ideas what it is talking about; and, actually, this part aims at describing the features of social commercial. On the other hand, some subtitles cannot fully represent the contents at these part. In the 'Onsite vs. Offsite Social Commerce' part, it not only talks about the definitions of Onsite and Offsite Social Commerce, but also compares these two. Thus, 'Onsite vs. Offsite Social Commerce' is only subordinate of this part. In my opinion, this part can be renamed as 'Types of Social Commerce' and the current definition, which is simple and vague, can be further extended and 'Onsite vs. Offsite Social Commerce' can be restructured as a subordinate. Besides, as Social Commerce is developing rapidly this year, more references about the trend of social commerce can be added both to exhibit the past improvements and to give a general view of prospectives in the future.Zis10 (talk) 02:07, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

On the other hand, this article says that social commerce is a subset of e-commerce. However, it tells nothing about the difference between this two and when a e-commerce can be surely redefined as social commerce. Besides, it does not clearly mention why this definition is put forward. Zis10 (talk) 02:40, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

I think you both have a good understanding of this concept. But do you think it's better that we summarize what we talked here and make a cohesive plan for improving this article? Like making a new content list and distribute works between us.Adamwang0705 (talk) 01:39, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

It seems to me that both of you agreed that the structure and the classification need to be improved. In particular, the Notable social commerce sites shouldn’t be grouped into Measuring Social Commerce Success because they are not strongly relevant with each other. In addition, I think the three measuring ways could be improved by adding more introduction or details. Besides, I noticed that there are other Wikipedia pages talking about the three different measuring ways (Return on Investment, Reputation, Reach); it’s better to give the links to these three topics. I also suggest it add some new Notable social commerce sites such as “Yelp” if applicable. Sylvia198899 (talk) 00:08, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Furthermore, the content of first paragraph could be divided into instruction and history/timeline sections. In my opinion, the history could be presented either by descriptive way or timeline list because the latter could be more intuitive and clear. Besides, in the 7 Species of Social Commerce, the previous editor gave some examples without providing links. I found that there are lots of resulting pages when we search “Amazon” in Wikipedia. As matter of fact, the correct Wikipedia page of social commerce should be “Amazon.com”. The same situation was encountered while searching “eBay”, “Yelp”, ”Apple”, and so on. Thus, I suggest us to add the links to the terms that can be found in Wikipedia. This way, it helps readers to get access to the specific content of the topics they want to understand quickly. I also noticed that the External Link “David Beisel’s Review” is invalid, but I found there is an “About Me” webpage in the same website. Maybe replacing the current one with that could be another option.Sylvia198899 (talk) 00:18, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

I summarize our discussion and reorganize the structure of table of contents. The layout of the catalog is as follows.

1. Introduction
2. Timeline
3. Elements of Social Commerce
4. Features (previous: The 6C’s of Social Commerce)
5. Types
   1. Onsite Social Commerce
   2. Offsite Social Commerce
   3. Onsite v.s. Offsite Social Commerce
6. Measurement (previous: Measuring Social Commerce Success)
7. Business application (previous: 7 Species of Social Commerce): Return on Investment, Reputation, Reach
8. Business examples (previous: Notable Social Commerce Sites): including brief introduction for each of the notable social commerce sites
9. Trend: past improvement, prospective view
10. See also
11. References
12. External links

I’m wondering if Adamwang can take care of 3,6,7 and Zis 4,5,9? I’ll be in charge of 1, 2, and 8. Then, we can do 10,11,12 together. Let’s work together to improve it and make it better. Sylvia198899 (talk) 02:37, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, sure. But I think Business application is a bit like Business examples. I suggest to combine these 2 section together.Zis10 (talk) 05:31, 13 November 2014 (UTC)