Talk:Intershop comparison

Some points you must address before you change this page:

1. how, exactly, is one to prevent intershop comparison from being provided by an add-on service? What Consumerium License provisions specifically say "you can't do this, and we can yank your access to the data if you do"?

Including explicit price data in your submissions is explicitly forbidden in [[Consumerium]].

Any such data will be removed if found in [[Research Wiki]] or [[Signal Wiki]]

You may include verbal descriptions of pricing policies of different companies,

but no numerical data whether as in price or percentage will be allowed --Juxo 16:59, 13 Mar 2004 (EET)

So the Consumerium License doesn't apply to such data, or forbids its integration within Consumerium Services? Be specific. You can't use words like "forbidden", or "may" or "will be removed" or "allowed". You have to describe how it is actually detected and removed in the Consumerium Process.

This doesn't prevent anyone from integrating Signal Wiki output into their own non-Consumerium buying signal that could include such data. It would be out of Consumerium Governance Organization control, assuming of course that they aren't distributing their own hardwired devices, which I must assume they are not. In general it might be better to provide clear ways to integrate price data, for reasons outlined below:

2. why, exactly, does the Development Wiki's present concept of Features and their priority take precedence over what is required to implement best cases? A proper development process is motivated by its comprehensive outcome as expressed in use cases.

I haven't looked at the best cases in a while and when i did i found them to be quite utopian (exept for those that were dystopian)

By all means take the ones you find dystopian and write up worst cases to mirror them exactly. That's one of the reasons to have both. It's up to factions anyway to say what they think is desirable versus not, same as political parties arguing over law. Yawn. Yes we can make even the most interesting things boring, so they can be settled. ;-)

and to the answer as to why there will be no explicit price data is to

A) No retailer, not even friendly retailer will want their price information to be licensed for any use that is not explicitly hoped and paid for by the retailer ie. advertising

But there's potential for advertising, e.g. "our price plus the price premium that according to your individual buying criteria you are willing to pay for our better product, is much better than the price for their red light product". That isn't possible though unless the price data is integrated. Else people have to do adding (!) of price premium in their own heads maybe, or remembering (!) whether it cost more in the other shop.

B) Including price data within the Wikis would jeopardise our assumed neutrality.

(pardon casual fixes to spelling errors) Not if it's part of ordinary checkout counter functionality. That's what's done at that counter! It is certainly useful to calculate the actual price paid including the price premium (which could be positive or negative). So prices and premiums would be in one system in that case anyway, though it wouldn't be for intershop comparison purposes.

C) Keeping the price data exact and up-to-date would take too much resources

That's the store's problem. This is not an argument to make it difficult or impossible in the architecture. There are many potential applications that the stores may support, or third parties may want to add, and we can either control and allow for those, or not. I think worse things happen if you try to avoid any responsibility for this.

3. If you have big problems or anticipate big problems with intershop comparison, why is there nothing in worst cases explaining how it has bad consequences? Until there is, objections to this feature HAVE NO STATUS, and amount to nothing but feelings. This is similar to the betting issue. If you can't explain why it's bad, expect others to pursue it, until you can. If you're building an open architecture, you're going to see services you don't want implemented, implemented.

We are likely to run into possibly bad attitudes in implementing Intershop navigation, since some retailers will be afraid that the feature is driving customers to competing businesses. besides if you look at features it says that the implementation medium for Intershop navigation is yet undetermined since it requires some kind of GIS-engine to run such a service, which undoubtedly would be useful.

"Likely", "possibly bad", "some", "afraid", bah. The Big Carrot is not afraid of this. They would probably like to be able to signal people over in the nearby stores that they have a product which is MUCH better for the Earth or their neighbours, and it costs a little more, but not more than the price premium. A Consumerium buying signal could take the form "there is something available for $24.35, which is only $19.95 given your price premium, that does no damage to the planet and it is a two minute's walk away, do you want to buy this thing in front of you or not?" That lets the customer make the choice and doesn't require the unfriendly retail's help.

You have to lose this idea that all stores will be friendly. Many won't, and it is important to drive them out of business. ;-0

4. Consider whether your view is factional. To many people, price comparison is the first feature they'd want, and only later would they care about moral purchasing.

The ones looking primarily for price comparison can go elsewhere. The internet is full of price comparison-services

They have to be integrated eventually, certainly for Internet shopping, where people expect convenience and not to be adding up numbers in their own heads. It is a major opportunity to add moral purchasing to price comparison servers.

There's a lot of reasons to want this, and only some vague feelings not to. It seems to be something that ought to be explicitly allowed for in architecture.