This article is written in Australian English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, realise, program, labour (but Labor Party)) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Kogan.com is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Companies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of companies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CompaniesWikipedia:WikiProject CompaniesTemplate:WikiProject Companiescompany articles
It read like an ad for Kogan because a PR company wrote it. Complete with more references than a PhD. thesis. I'm surprised they didn't add prices too. 14.202.132.63 (talk) 10:54, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Why does this page read like an ad for Kogan? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.0.159.16 (talk) 06:23, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
i've trimmed the POV. even the controversies section paints Kogan in a positive light. multiple references are direct from Kogan's website so hardly independent. LibStar (talk) 07:01, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Seems neutral now. The links to Kogan are just links to external articles hosted on their site - but not all positive. (202.60.90.22 (talk) 00:39, 22 May 2012 (UTC))[reply]
POV yes, advert yes. There's multiple serious concerns with this article, including the POV which I've tagged. Is there is an editor who has a WP:COI here? please can you disclose that as per that guideline. Widefox (talk) 11:21, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am facinated by your article - (well done). It came to my notice on my wife's trade with Korgan; I got there looking to buy a 'Sharp'Air Dryer 175.32.111.100 (talk) 12:34, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps it is because Kogan is my fathers company. I have 4 Kogan TVs (wall-mounted) and they are great at an awesome price. Cheers Subi. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Subi (talk • contribs) 07:03, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Blueskymorning has made a large edit on 16 JAN 2013 which is pro Kogan. This edit has deleted numerous sources which reference non pro Kogan view points. I have just re-added a reference to a Federal Government Media release which was deleted by the aformentioned user during the bulk edit in question. Please review such a large edit and take action accordingly. Thankyou. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.210.64.93 (talk) 16:31, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This article still has too many pro kogan points of view.
A little bit of googling and you'll find some dodgy stuff Kogan has done that may be worth mentioning in this wiki article.
Interesting, the author "You", you are a master at getting around the (one could say) the
almost delenquint use "swatting-flys" sentence structures. but I still like what you did -
it was worth the trip, even though I am thinking, "Where have been", and "did I learn something that I will never use?"........Thanks anywhy! 175.32.111.100 (talk) 12:46, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have just added archive links to one external link on Kogan.com. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
As explained in the edits this article is far too long. Of course every time I remove trivial content such as changes to stock price and long lists of controversy which seem to equate to every mention the company gets in online media it keeps getting reverted. This information is sufficiently interesting, I don't know what end it serves. This was edited in good faith and I still believe this article is too long but have been conservative in pruning. Rather than constantly revert, please jsutify why this level of detail is necessary for a page about an organisation. This article is almost as long as that of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald's, considering this is an online retailer founded in 2006, and McDonald's was founded in 1948 and exists in almost every country. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaycar is an example of a more appropriate length article for an Australian business. Now, please discuss in talking before reverting my changes again. Simgrant (talk) 04:14, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I consider user User:FoCuSandLeArN to be engaging in edit warring, if there is another revert I intend to report it, alternately another user may choose to the same or even User:FoCuSandLeArN if they feel I am the one edit warring, I would welcome outside scrutiny form the Wikipedia community. He/she has not discussed the changes on this talk page but instead contacted me on my user page threatening that my account will be blocked, something he has no authority to do, this can only be done by the community. Justify on this talk page why this article should be so long on page of a company that is only notable in Australia. I have no problem with you re-editing the page but please keep pages like this short, otherwise people start to question the neutrality of the article which hurts Wikipedia in the long run. Simgrant (talk) 22:47, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Simgrant: Calm down and consider and pay heed to the advice you were given. Your notions as a novice editor about how long an article should be have very little bearing right now. The fact you feel "the article is too long for an Australian company" is nonsense. Any referenced content with appropriate coverage that is written in a neutral and encyclopaedic tone will not be removed willy-nilly as you intend it to be. If you have concerns about the nature of said content, i.e. if it needs better sourcing or has neutrality issues, please communicate on the appropriate venues first, such as here or any relevant noticeboards. Do not engage in disruptive editing as you are doing right now. A warning is not a threat, but rather a heads-up. I recommend you sit down and review our guidelines carefully before continuing. A good place to start is here. It is always advisable to be polite and considerate; your actions are easily monitored and we like to keep things friendly around Wikipedia. Best, FoCuScontribs; talk to me! 23:02, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@FoCuSandLeArN: You need to address my point logically, not claim that "novice" editors have no right to redact articles. The fact is you have not sought arbitration or addressed my point, which makes me wonder that perhaps even you suspect you are not on firm ground. Feel free to continue to attempt to contact me repeatedly on my user page and from time to time I will check in an revert vaxatious ocmments. Simgrant (talk) 23:15, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@FoCuSandLeArN: Apologies I neglected to warn you more formally Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.. Will yet again re-revert. Simgrant (talk) 23:19, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I believe you are trying to bend the rules to suit your purposes. I did not violate that precise rule, strictly reverting you no more than 3 consecutive times in the 24 hr window. I am now requesting your username be blocked for violating that rule yourself. You have consistently ignored my indications and advice above and in your talk page, even deleting said posts. I am sorry you do not want to see what's in front of you. Best, FoCuScontribs; talk to me! 23:31, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Why does this page need more citations than this page Leonardo_da_Vinci? Are they equally notable? Simgrant (talk) 02:14, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Citations are usually a good thing, as long as they're from quality sources and serve to substantiate good content. The number of citations an article has, however, is irrelevant with regards to its overall structure and content, and ultimately whether an article is simply good or poor. Comparing articles is often a futile endeavour, given many articles on Wikipedia go unattended for long periods of time, as well as a myriad other reasons. Do not fixate on the number of sources, but rather how they are utilised and where they come from. At the same time, you are confusing notability with citations, which are entirely separate things. If the subject weren't notable it wouldn't be on the encyclopaedia in the first place. Once notability is considered sufficient for inclusion, sources are used to back up content. The more sources one has, the longer the article can be (for obvious verifiability reasons), and again there is no limit to article length, beyond a few Wikipedia conventions that have to do with convenience. You also have to consider Leonardo da Vinci didn't live in a time where online sources existed, and so many of the sources used in that article are books and other historical references, which are gauged differently; for instance, there might be an entire book dedicated to his childhood, and that might be used to back biographical information only. Finally, if you consider an article's sources to be poorly used, or its content needs copy editing, please explain yourself and try to reach consensus before making such drastic changes, or you'll likely face opposition at some point. If you cannot endure the collaborative nature of this Project, I'm afraid it might just not be suited for you. Hope this helps. Best, FoCuScontribs; talk to me! 16:04, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I wanted to have a read on the article, and I noticed the peculiar nature of the article.
Others have pointed out excessive references (why would someone have so many?) and the lack of proper criticism, but I also noticed a few bits,
— "Kogan currently sells more than a million dollars of product every day, and has been growing at between 200% and 300% per year since its 2006 inception.["
Really? A quick Google search reveals the company keeps having big ups and big downs. They seemed to have massive growth after COVID started (2020), and then an overall downfall since (2021-2022)
— "Financial results"
Notice that the section lacks even a single negative financial result. Is the section targeted to the potential investors?
— "Controversies"
Not a single controversy portrays Kogan negatively. Rather, Kogan is at worst a mistreated company, or misunderstood, or is just too innovative.
Also regarding controversies, not a single controversy related to the far worse topics, such as selling the generic brand TV panels alluding as if they were made by Samsung, gray imports, poor return policy practices and possibly more.
— "The ACMA found Kogan’s conduct breached the Spam Act, which "requires commercial electronic messages to contain a functional unsubscribe facility". To resolve the case, the company agreed to a court-enforceable undertaking and paid a $310,800 infringement notice. [141] "
The company agreed to pay court-enforceable notice? If it's court-enforeable, it sounds like they had no choice, rather than that they are generous as to agree to pay it? To give a similar example, I get a parking ticket, then because the infringement notice is enforceable, it's not like I'm being generous in paying fines, rather I have no real choice.
I suspect the Kogan.com article is being edited by the company, but I'd like to see if other people notice anything similar lately.
.svg){kind=small}
.svg){kind=logo}
