|WikiProject Software / Computing||(Rated Start-class)|
The article currently says that they decided to rewrite osCommerce. That sounds a bit confusing -- did they work from the osCommerce code base and rewrite it, or did they start from scratch to make a clone? I assume the later given the license of Magento, but someone who knows for sure may want to clarify the wording Balleyne (talk) 20:10, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
may be it should be removed? I do not find the article, the link is redirect ot the main site of the journal
I also think it would be unfair for a genral researcher if we don't lay the cards on the table. Magento doesn't have what to hide anyway. On a side note, I would appreciate if you can sign your name with something better that an IP addy. Try signing up! Kadima100 (talk) 18:46, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm removing the advertisement tag. I cleaned up much of the page and added some criticism and limitations. If anyone thinks that the tag should be there, please by all means add it. However, I'd greatly appreciate if you can write here why you think so. (You are entitled to your opinion.) Oh, and please sing your name. I nice to be identifiable. Kadima100 (talk) 03:43, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
I have added referenced information to the Overview and History sections. Can the "needs references" tag be removed? Or are there suggestions for improvement so it meets the requirements?
Simply put, the features section is not helpful. The description line at the top claims to list "some of the key features" of Magento, but it's really a brain dump of anything the software might do.
If the intent is to list key features, then just list key features and include a mention of the availability of a complete feature list on Magento's site. This will better serve people reading the article and prevent stale links in the defaultlogic.com resource entry (as Magento's features page even indicates the page may change without notice).
I'm just not sure a full feature list in a bad format is in line with defaultlogic.com resource standards or even helpful for people reading the article.
This article has been stripped down so much that it is virtually useless. Most things that need to be said about Magento are positive, but because some uptight editors are so worried about being biased, this doesn't seem to be possible. --Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 10:27, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
Seems awfully subjective, and uninformative. I think both the "features" and "limitations" sections should go. But at the very least, the "Limitations" section should be renamed "Criticism". Also, as there are no sources for either, their time is short unless someone stops me. Proxy User (talk) 22:47, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Can anyone please provide good links to reliable, third-party sources? I AFD'd this because the article doesn't really seem to contain any. I found one, http://www.practicalecommerce.com/articles/925-The-PeC-Review-Magento-Is-the-Open-Source-Powerhouse-, that seems quite relevant (review of the software, not a promo site), that could/should be added somewhere. (And withdrew nom.) -- Timneu22 · talk 16:53, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
I think these guys should be added to this text. They are doing great work regarding Magento SEO and are 3rd vendor according to number of extensions for Magento. Here is the link to their site: (Redacted) --Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 12:07, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
I havent been editing this article long but there seems to be a fair amount of ip users spamming the page, suggest the page gets semi protected, thoughts?
Magento havent updated the official version page so have left it in as a reference but also added the release notes for the current latest version 1.14, will remove this once the official current version page updates. For date I used the date I recieved the email notification so that it is approx, again can be updated once the official page is updated. -- Preceding unsigned comment added by Webwidget (talk o contribs) 22:02, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
The current article states "In April 2014, W3Techs estimated that Magento was used by 1.0% of all websites."
The citation links to http://w3techs.com/technologies/details/cm-magento/all/all which actually states
"Magento is used by 2.7% of all the websites whose content management system we know. This is 1.0% of all websites."
So, that's 2.7% of 1.0% ... which is an insignificant percentage. The very concept that Magento serves 1% of the worlds websites is not tenable.
Manage research, learning and skills at defaultLogic. Create an account using LinkedIn or facebook to manage and organize your Digital Marketing and Technology knowledge. defaultLogic works like a shopping cart for information -- helping you to save, discuss and share.Visit defaultLogic's partner sites below: