Ecommerce 2021 #2155
Comments
rviscomi
added
2021 chapter
|
Happy to contribute as a peer reviewer here. |
|
Hi Rick - I would like to sign up as a data analyst here. Thanks! |
|
📟 paging 2019/2020 contributors: @samdutton @alankent @voltek62 @wizardlyhel @rockeynebhwani @jrharalson @drewzboto Would any of you be interested to contribute to the 2021 chapter? I'd especially like to see more 2019/2020 authors become 2021 reviewers to help ease the transition and similarly I think prior reviewers would make great 2021 authors, being familiar with the process already. And prior analysts would make excellent 2021 analysts 😁 Or is there anyone new you'd like to see? |
|
@soulcorrosion did you have interest in being an author or peer reviewer for this chapter? |
rviscomi
added
help wanted: coauthors
|
Happy to review!
…On Wed, 5 May 2021, 21:17 Rick Viscomi, ***@***.***> wrote:
@soulcorrosion <https://github.com/soulcorrosion> did you have interest
in being an author or peer reviewer for this chapter?
—
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#2155 (comment)>,
or unsubscribe
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AABSDKTR4EOBB4SA72QNLRTTMGRVVANCNFSM43UFNOMA>
.
|
|
Hi, I'd be interested in putting my name forward as an author. |
Hi @rviscomi I can review. Since I'm reviewing in another chapter as well, authoring can be too much. |
|
I am happy to review as well of course (I offered via email but had not noted it here as well). |
rviscomi
removed
help wanted
|
@bobbyshaw thanks for your interest in authoring this chapter! As the content team lead, you'll be responsible for the scope and direction of the chapter and keeping it on schedule. We automatically monitor the staffing and progress of each chapter based on the state of the initial comment so please keep that updated as you add new contributors and meet each milestone. We've created a Google Doc for this chapter, which you're encouraged to use to collaborate with the content team on the initial outline, metrics, and ultimately the final draft. Next steps for this chapter are:
There's not currently a section coordinator for this chapter, so I'll be periodically checking in with you directly to make sure the chapter is staying on schedule. Reach out here in this issue if you have any questions about the process. More information about the content team lead and author roles and responsibilities are available for reference in the wiki if needed. To anyone else interested in contributing to this chapter, please comment below to join the team! |
|
Hello to the Ecomm team! I'm here to assist you in any way possible and to help keep the project on track. To that end, please let me know if I can assist along the way, and thank you for volunteering your time and effort into making the next release the best ever! |
|
I can contribute as an editor if its needed :) |
|
Awesome, @shantsis. Thank you 👍 |
|
I've got a first draft of a content plan in the Google Doc https://docs.google.com/document/d/1LQjpsaWx-5ZtHQGRnHlPnekkxuap50KzJZJTIaSX4B4/edit#. I don't think there's anything too surprising or novel that will require lots of new metrics at this point but I'll continue thinking about it and reviewing. I'm also going to take a look at Wappalyzer signatures to see if there's anything else I can contribute to ensure it's representative of current trends in e-commerce platforms. I'm not sure how involved reviewers get at this stage but tagging you now in case you want to have a read through of this first draft of the content plan - cc @fili @samdutton @alankent @soulcorrosion Hi @rrajiv, I'll take a look too but would you like to start having a think about metrics that we might need or want? I appreciate it's you and me as author & analyst. I don't have any experience querying the underlying datasets but happy to dig in and learn if it's something you think you'll need support with. |
|
@bobbyshaw - I'll check out last year's metrics first to get an idea what was done. I don't have too much experience as well as this is my first time being an analyst ;) |
|
@bobbyshaw - Based on last year's experience, I made some observations with respect to eCommerce platform detection and have raised couple of issues for Wappalyzer. You guys may want to get these sorted to get quality data - https://github.com/AliasIO/wappalyzer/issues/3983 |
|
Great, thanks @rrajiv. I'll review the results spreadsheet and get started! |
|
Hey, a quick update. I’m a bit behind on digesting the analysis and writing the draft but I’ve started in earnest yesteday. I hope to have something to review in a week’s time. I’ve got a couple of questions so far. Would you be able to help @rrajiv? I appreciate you said you would be travelling so I don’t expect a quick response. There’s a sharp rise in ecommerce platforms (215 vs 145 last year). I'd expect some rise as more platforms are added to Wappalyzer but there are a number of technologies in there that I wouldn’t consider to be ecommerce. I’ve checked Wappalyzer signatures but they didn’t seem to be in the ecommerce category nor imply cart functionality. Do you know why that might be? Examples of anomalies in the top vendors tab are:
One other platform I’m not sure about is 1C-Bitrix. It’s a Russian software suite that has an ecommerce product within it but not as a core component to it. We included it last year so I’d be interested in your thoughts @rockeynebhwani. Is it fair to include it in the top 10 list when it’s likely that actually, a much smaller proportion of all 1C-Bitrix sites are ecommerce? I guess we can't discount or adjust its position as any adjustment would be based on an assumption. I think you had a similar problem in the past with Wix though that seems to have specific ecommerce signatures now. I’ve also started to read through the figure guide on how to create charts but I may need some help. In the first instance, I’ve added within the draft at this stage. I’ll focus on the draft itself for now and come back to the figures afterwards. |
|
@bobbyshaw - I won't worry about sharp incrase in number of ecommerce platforms. I personally would have contributed 30 different platfrorms to Wappalyzer since last year. As of today, Wappalyzer is tracking 264 different ecommerce platforms. You can see latest count on this page - https://www.wappalyzer.com/technologies/ecommerce. I personally observed that technologies analysis for CMS/ecommerce is more skewed towards North America. In last 12 months, I added many different platforms from Korea / Latin America / India and other countries from Europe. That may be one of the reason. Regarding technologies like Loox, Omnisend etc, it's a problem due to open source nature of Wappalyzer. Anybody can add a technolgoy and assigned to ecommerce category where they can't find another appropriate category. For example, Loox is an app for reviews but there was no category for reviews till very recently so contributors by default choose Loox. However, in many cases, this resolves itself and new categories are introduced over time (For example - Loox has been categorised under 'Reviews' category now). I checked all examples in your comment and none of them are not categorised under ecommerce. You can search for these on link I shared above. You are looking at latest Wappalyzer signatures on GitHub whereas queries output are from July-2021 and these were updated after July-2021. For the purpose of top 10 platforms, I suggest you ignore these. |
|
@bobbyshaw - Regarding 1C-Bitrix, I am not very familiar with this platform and I didn't realise this last year. Yes.. it's same issue as 'Wix'. This year, I was able to get in touch with 'Wix' team and make changes to Wappalyzer to split Wix detection as 'Wix' (CMS) and 'Wix commerce'. We should do the same with 1C-Bitrix if there is a way to identify. For now, I suggest you add this as a caveat as I did for 'Wix' last year. @bobbyshaw - This is the most recent discussion I could find on 1C-Bitrix. As of now, we don't know how to differentiate between CMS and commerce sites. - https://github.com/AliasIO/wappalyzer/pull/4157 |
|
Thanks @rockeynebhwani. That's really helpful. |
|
@bobbyshaw - Iam still on the road but if you want to let me know the questions, I can answer when possible. If you need charts let me know the tabs and I can try it from the iPad. |
|
@bobbyshaw - I will also be on the move for next 4 weeks but I can try to help with the charts. @rviscomi - I don't have edit access on results sheet. Can you please grant me 'edit access'? |
|
@rockeynebhwani can you hit "Request edit access"? |
|
@rviscomi - I already did couple of days ago but have done again now.. let me know if you don't receive my request |
|
@bobbyshaw - I have created all charts in results sheet. Please have a look and let me know if I missed anything or if anything is not clear. |
|
That's incredible, thanks @rockeynebhwani 🤩 |
|
@bobbyshaw do you think I can start reading for the review? |
|
Thanks for your patience team. I can now offer my very rough first draft for review. Given that days are passing quickly feel free to review at your earliest convenience and I will respond to each as and when I can. @rockeynebhwani @fili @samdutton @alankent @soulcorrosion (@shantsis I'm not sure the appropriate time for an editor to get involved but tagging you as a heads-up anyway). Overall, I think we’ve found the ecommerce landscape to be very similar to last year. However, we do have a couple of new discussion opportunities, particularly with the ranking data. There was some rapid growth around Q2-3 last year when COVID hit but the growth rate appears to have returned to pre-pandemic levels. In terms of what we’ve covered. We came up with so many topics during the outline, which is great. It’s fair to say that we ddn’t get through them all! There was some that we just didn’t get around to doing in the depth that was suggested, e.g. SEO, and others that weren’t practical because of lack of data, e.g very few personalisation technologies. In terms of limitations, I think going forward headless sites are going to cause us the most trouble. Even in this year’s edition, it would have been nice to have more to say on this trend. While I’m sure a lot fewer people are going headless than the buzz would suggest, the easiest and sometimes only way for us to detect a platform is through its frontend markup choices. Over the next week, my plan is to:
For any other questions or longer discussions not suited to here or the Google Doc, you're welcome to find me |
|
Thanks for the update. I will have a look at it in the coming week and get
back to you.
…On Fri, Nov 5, 2021, 18:17 Tom Robertshaw ***@***.***> wrote:
Thanks for your patience team. I can now offer my very rough first draft
<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1LQjpsaWx-5ZtHQGRnHlPnekkxuap50KzJZJTIaSX4B4/edit#heading=h.l58oy8wsputh>
for review. Given that days are passing quickly feel free to review at your
earliest convenience and I will respond to each as and when I can.
@rockeynebhwani <https://github.com/rockeynebhwani> @fili
<https://github.com/fili> @samdutton <https://github.com/samdutton>
@alankent <https://github.com/alankent> @soulcorrosion
<https://github.com/soulcorrosion> ***@***.***
<https://github.com/shantsis> I'm not sure the appropriate time for an
editor to get involved but tagging you as a heads-up anyway).
Overall, I think we’ve found the ecommerce landscape to be very similar to
last year. However, we do have a couple of new discussion opportunities,
particularly with the ranking data. There was some rapid growth around Q2-3
last year when COVID hit but the growth rate appears to have returned to
pre-pandemic levels.
In terms of what we’ve covered. We came up with so many topics during the
outline, which is great. It’s fair to say that we ddn’t get through them
all! There was some that we just didn’t get around to doing in the depth
that was suggested, e.g. SEO, and others that weren’t practical because of
lack of data, e.g very few personalisation technologies.
In terms of limitations, I think going forward headless sites are going to
cause us the most trouble. Even in this year’s edition, it would have been
nice to have more to say on this trend. While I’m sure a lot fewer people
are going headless than the buzz would suggest, the easiest and sometimes
only way for us to detect a platform is through its frontend markup choices.
Over the next week, my plan is to:
- Compare to last years for any further commentary that could be made.
- Respond to all of your feedback and correction and update as
appropriate.
- Re-read the author guide and style guide and re-draft with that in
mind.
- Read through the next steps for converting to markdown and get
started
For any other questions or longer discussions not suited to here or the Google
Doc
<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1LQjpsaWx-5ZtHQGRnHlPnekkxuap50KzJZJTIaSX4B4/edit#heading=h.l58oy8wsputh>,
you're welcome to find me #web-almanac-ecommerce slack channel
—
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#2155 (comment)>,
or unsubscribe
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAA4EP57EKPEQ5IOPPUZDKTUKQGQZANCNFSM43UFNOMA>
.
|
|
Just wanted to say I think the start is coming together well @bobbyshaw (and others)! The end still needs work (not finished). I finished a complete pass through. Feel free to mention me on this thread again later if you want me to make another pass. |
|
I did a first pass through the doc. Main thing to be careful of is use of past tense (for our analytics) vs present (current state of web), and use of British vs US spelling |
|
The other thing to note is that there are a lot of charts using only green bars (not desktop related) that are leading to poor contrast. @tunetheweb suggests we can either use the dark gray color instead for both for bar and label, or just the label |
|
Other option is to use black labels. But find they look better as inside labels (something just seems "off" when they are outside labels for green bars):
|
|
Thanks, everyone. I've incorporated all feedback, including the chart suggestions and Americani I'm going to take a break and come back in a few days to start the process of converting to markdown. I'll do my best to incorporate any final comments made during that period. Thanks, again. |
|
@bobbyshaw @rockeynebhwani @fili @samdutton @alankent @soulcorrosion @rrajiv @shantsis 🎉 This chapter is fully written, reviewed, edited, and ready to be launched on Wednesday! Thank you to all of the contributors who put in the time and effort to make this a great chapter. When you get 5 minutes, I'd really appreciate if you could fill out our contributor survey to tell us (the project leads) about your experience. It's super helpful to hear what went well or what could be improved for next time. 🙏 Congratulations and thank you all again. I'm excited for this to launch soon! |
Part III Chapter 17: Ecommerce
If you're interested in contributing to the Ecommerce chapter of the 2021 Web Almanac, please reply to this issue and indicate which role or roles best fit your interest and availability: author, reviewer, analyst, and/or editor.
Content team
Expand for more information about each role
Note: The time commitment for each role varies by the chapter's scope and complexity as well as the number of contributors.
For an overview of how the roles work together at each phase of the project, see the Chapter Lifecycle doc.
Milestone checklist
0. Form the content team
1. Plan content
2. Gather data
3. Validate results
4. Draft content
5. Publication
Chapter resources
Refer to these 2021 Ecommerce resources throughout the content creation process:
📄 Google Docs for outlining and drafting content
🔍 SQL files for committing the queries used during analysis
📊 Google Sheets for saving the results of queries
📝 Markdown file for publishing content and managing public metadata
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: