Yorkshiregeek

Ahoy! Dom & I have a little topic discussion ongoing on my talk page... EisenEimer (talk) 18:26, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Nice OK I have setup my page now to hopefully add some credibility to the task ahead..! Yorkshiregeek (talk) 11:38, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I know that toni asked us to talk amongst each other to find out who was doing the same topic as ourselves so that we can ensure that not so many people would be editing the same page and different members of the topic can collaborate. After reading your user page I have discovered that you have not stated a topic in which you would like to study so I thought I would ask if you have decided upon a topic yet. Myself I have chosen to study the topic of Internet relationship. So if you have an interest in this topic too please can you let me know.

Thanks Kate Carter-Rigg (talk) 03:00, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi Kate I think I'm doing something with Jason & Dom (eMusic) - cheers for the offer though!

Ok Good Luck Kate Carter-Rigg (talk) 09:29, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

User:ToniSant Workshop page.

eMusic

So it has been agreed that the group I am in will be looking at editing eMusic

My Teams Sandboxes User:Mynewdomicile/sandbox User:EisenEimer/sandbox

Division of Labour for Emusic edits I am planning to do the edit of the introduction and the side bar from the Emusic. Yorkshiregeek (talk) 11:35, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Discussion

Dom and Paul.... Given you did this for Ebiz have you got the revenue model for Emusic? I want to expand on the "eMusic is an online music and audiobook store that operates by subscription" to add a more academic description so if either of you have a good sentence or two with a ref can you paste under here?

The current model is a hybrid of subscription & direct sales. Customers pay a recurring subscription fee to access the service and the level of the subscription fee determines the monthly amount of credit for buying downloads. Audiobooks & music require separate subscriptions, so you can't take out a single subscription and use it for both product types. You can pick up a lot of the info for this here on the eMusic membership plan page. For a reference to various business models, try: Laudon, K. C. & Traver, C. G., 2007. E-Commerce: Business, Technology, Society. 3rd ed. New Jersey: Pearson Prentice Hall. (Page 60 ish, I think?) EisenEimer (talk) 21:37, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Also should I keep a list of my edits in the sandbox here or will that be picked up in history on my sandbox? :S Yorkshiregeek (talk) 21:10, 8 March 2012 (UTC) Updated: There is of course version history in the sandbox. Now I also realise the importance of providing edit summary.

I have also read through the press releases on the eMusic website. There are some important announcements here such as IPAD app launch in 2011. Perhaps there should be an actual timeline section in this page. Then all the info could be simply appended by the new stuff as and when people discover new info?? [1] Yorkshiregeek (talk) 21:16, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I have found a journal that talks about problems with the revenue sharing model in 2007 that discouraged music companies releasing certain tracks to eMusic due to pricing model. Not sure if I should add that in my section but this is what the journal says....

When songs earn less inside a bundle than they would outside, then bundling can unravel, as appears to have occurred at eMusic, a seller that had used proportional sharing (Harding 2007). When artists become relatively popular, the labels are reluctant to make their new songs available on the site. After declining to make a label’s biggest new songs available to the site, the label’s publicist said, “the label plans to continue using eMusic to sell smaller releases and will post major releases after a yet-to-be determined lag time. [2] . The article is a journal titled "THE CHALLENGE OF REVENUE SHARING WITH BUNDLED PRICING:

AN APPLICATION TO MUSIC". Not sure if too much detail for introduction section but worth marking perhaps in case we use further down. Yorkshiregeek (talk) 21:45, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I've had a quick look at your sandboxed sections. I'd recommend looking for a reference for the start of the third para of your intro - eMusic may well have been 'lauded by the public', but I'd have though we really need a source for that for it to appear in the appear. Also for the assertion that lack of DRM was the cause of major labels not distributing via eMusic (plausible, but again, a reference would be nice). EisenEimer (talk) 21:50, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Ok I have reworked that section added a couple of refs but removed the part about the Big4 as from my research its incorrect. eMusic business model was focussed initially on independent labels and DRM free music allowing them to be the only other provider to iPods. This suggests that it wasnt a snub from Big4 moreover a conscious decision by eMusic not to engage with the Big4. Also Toni has suggested that if I want I could make my edit live :S . What do you think? Shall I test the water given that I have had no comments on the sandbox to date?? Yorkshiregeek (talk) 23:56, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

I'd maybe start by updating the sidebar and see what response that gets, then move on to the intro text depending on feedback (if any). EisenEimer (talk) 08:46, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

I have taken the plunge and uploaded all changes. Maybe a dramatic step like this may engage some debates here and there?? Yorkshiregeek (talk) 09:43, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

OK I have had some feedback saying the research is good but given this is a summary perhaps the bulk of the section I am looking at should be in the main part? I thought I had only added factual elements to make the section more credible? How far are you guys off doing your bit? Perhaps some of what I have done could be then moved over to your edited sections and it be condensed accordingly? I have suggested that the third para could be moved to the main body but that the rest really does form part of the summary. Yorkshiregeek (talk) 16:06, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

I've had other things to deal with since Thursday (not suitable for airing on Wikipedia) so I haven't started rewriting 'my' sections yet. Should be back in the saddle 12th/13th March. Regarding moving content to other sections, if you feel it would be best moved, go for it - I haven't sandboxed anything yet. EisenEimer (talk) 21:19, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi Jason, these sections may need reworking shall we collectively add them to the emusic talk page? Mynewdomicile (talk) 12:04, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Sandbox Version

Just a niggle, does the company ownership maybe benefit more from being called history and ownership? or should the origins be moved to another area? Mynewdomicile (talk) 17:52, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Just noticed Origin and Company Ownership are the same? Mynewdomicile (talk) 17:55, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

My bad! I have removed origin.

I'm starting to feel like I'm really anal, but should we maybe change origins and current staff? and also the statements like " Richard brings over 20 years of experience in e-commerce, digital monetization, new media and product development." is this even of any use? I think rather than me saying this and this I'll just get into my sandbox... Mynewdomicile (talk) 19:23, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Thats fine if you want to let me know what sections you are looking at and I will look at some of the others? I just wanted to get the sections right so we can focus what we are doing. If you feel the content is naff then you are right to change. Do that in the section within your sandbox and then I can look at the other bits. Yorkshiregeek (talk) 21:38, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

I've had a little look around on eMusic's management team page and removed the current staff from the "Origins" area, not saying its the best approach but may be more relevant to segregate them into this area??? I dunno Mynewdomicile (talk) 17:27, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Ok. So you done that in your sandbox or mine? If its yours then what I suggest we do is me uploaded my restructured page and note on the talk page what I have done. Then you make your changes ontop and do the same?? Yorkshiregeek (talk) 18:55, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

No, did it on the live article :( and seen you've put your sandbox version on (curse you deletionists!) nvm I can amend it right? Mynewdomicile (talk) 22:39, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Long Study

Hi, how did your day testing go? Is iMapScarboroughCampus ready for release? WBClarkson (talk) 01:34, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Yeh it wont ok but as suspected the positioning without wifi is not too clever. Even with wifi at times its not stable positioning. The series of static maps as images went down well though. And the student ambassadors were this may mean they lose their jobs and were worried! Yorkshiregeek (talk) 08:19, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Good to here, I don't think they should be to worried they don't get paid do they? WBClarkson (talk) 10:33, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Yeh they do get paid. If you can spare 15mins after PSOIB tomorrow can you do a test and questionnaire for me? I gotta get 20 and only have 9 so far! Yorkshiregeek (talk) 23:22, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Sir, Sir that would be a pleasure. I could rope the girls in as well, but that's just me bragging. WBClarkson (talk) 23:25, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Re: Article feedback

Hello, Yorkshiregeek. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by - J-Mo ^{Talk to Me} _{Email Me} 03:40, 20 March 2012 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).

There is a question at the Teahouse you might have interest in...

Dear Yorkshiregeek, I just asked a question at the Teahouse that you might have interest in! I hope you'll stop by and participate! Sarah (talk) 01:40, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Summary of Emusic Contribution

I made a significant number of changes to the emusic page including:-

• Updated sidebar statistics
• Updated introduction - however feedback from a wikopedian led me to condense to a small paragraph as suggested on the style guide. this resulted in the work (that was praised by the wikopedian) being moved into the main body of the page.
• Updated page headings
• Updated most of the references to the correct format
• Updated reference list to columns

I also engaged with the Teahouse and had suggestions to consider how facts were stated when they are not part of original research. I took this on board and reworded some sentences. The pages has not been reverted back to date despite having over 5000 page views this month so I class that as a team success.

The version history nearer the 8th March will show the introduction how it was prior to my additions and edits.

Yorkshiregeek (talk) 20:24, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Smile!

A smile for you You’ve just received a random act of kindness! 66.87.0.87 (talk) 21:29, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

A brownie for you!

Hi Yorkshiregeek! I just wanted to drop by from the Teahouse and bring you a fresh wiki-brownie and say hi! How is your Wikipedia experience going? See you around! Sarah (talk) 00:26, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Please fill out our brief Teahouse guest survey

Hello fellow Wikipedian, the hardworking hosts and staff at WP:Teahouse would like your feedback! We have created a brief survey meant to help us better understand the experience of new editors on Wikipedia. You are being selected to participate in our survey because you edited the Teahouse Questions or Guests pages sometime in the last few months.

Click here to be taken to the survey site.

The survey should take less than 10 minutes to complete. We really appreciate your feedback, and we look forward to your next vist to the Teahouse!

Happy editing,

J-Mo, Teahouse host

This message was sent via Global message delivery on 00:42, 22 May 2012 (UTC)