Talk:Home exchange

Agencies

Whilst free home exchange agencies may attract high membership numbers, agencies who require their members to pay a small fee for membership believe that they achieve higher exchange success rates because their members, having been willing to pay a subscription to participate, are more committed to the concept of home exchange and seriously researching home swap opportunities. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sqawain (talk • contribs) 20:21, February 5, 2007 (UTC)

External links

There seems to be some sort of debate about external links in this article. A WP:3O was requested, but this talk page seems to be empty. All "discussion" seems to have occurred via hidden comments on the article page. I have removed those hidden comments. I would suggest that discussion occur on the talk page - that's what it's for. I would aslo suggest that anyone wishing to add an external link read this page first. Beyond that, there's not much I can do. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 18:08, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Copy of discussion removed from article:

• Corpx DO NOT ADD YOUR SPAM LINKS HERE
• 84.23.227.217 Please explain why SPAM ???
• Corpx Propping your own sites through wikipedia is considered spam
• 84.23.224.18 Thanks for your feedback. A lot of sites are listed on wikipedia. spaceXchange does not include any spam... It is just an option for people who are looking for house swapping.
• Corpx Wikipedia is not a directory of links.

End copied discussion

• Sure, Wikipedia is not a directory of links BUT Wikipedia use a lot of links and some of them can definitely be seen as spam and advertising. What speaks against it, if one mention a website as a source and free fo charge ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.23.225.204 (talk • contribs) 07:24, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

There are a lot of differences between all free of charge home exchange agencies. To pay for a subcription does not mean that the concept is more seriously researching home swap opportunities. And free of charge does not mean that the agency accept every interested party. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.23.225.204 (talk • contribs) 07:38, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

• • Just because a website is free does not mean it should be mentioned in an article Corpx 04:07, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Sure. But why not mention a good website which offers House swapping ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.23.226.19 (talk • contribs) 07:54, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia's external links are supposed to provide more information about the subject of an article - they are not supposed to be mearly places where you can acquire the good or service which is the subject. Take a look at the external links on the article about Bottled water for example; there are lots of external links there - 9 of them in fact. There are links to articles discussing the supposed health benefits, the possiblity of toxins in the plastic the bottles are made from, the environmental costs, and two links to "bottled water associations" (which should probably be removed - but still, they are associations of several producers who have banded together to promote the industry). Compare the links there to the one you are trying to add here - the one you want to add here provides no additional information on house swapping; it's just a service that facilitates house swapping. You are not providing any additional useful information or background on the subject, you are "selling"(yes, I know it's free) or promoting your service.

Wikipedia's Policy on external links (which I highly suggest you read) has this to say about what should be included;

"3. Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues, amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks) or other reasons. 4. Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article, such as reviews and interviews."

and this to say about what should not be included;

"...there is a great temptation to use Wikipedia to advertise or promote sites. [...] You should avoid linking to a website that you own, maintain or represent, even if the guidelines otherwise imply that it should be linked. If the link is to a relevant and informative site that should otherwise be included, please consider mentioning it on the talk page and let neutral and independent Wikipedia editors decide whether to add it."

Now, with those excerpts in mind; why do you think this link should remain? ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 20:53, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

First let me thank you for the interchange and your time. We indeed provide additional useful information and background on the subject. Besides the fact that we explain how house swapping works, we present articles on our website and stories which were written by the members. That's why the link should remain. Do you agree ? If not, let me know how to convince you. What issue do you miss which should be added to our link ? Maybe you can enlighten me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.23.226.76 (talk • contribs) 06:16, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

The link provided provides a service to potential visitors. As a webmaster, I'm sure there is something that you gain from the people using your service (otherwise the site wouldnt be up). Corpx 18:07, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

That is the reason why you deleted our link because you assume ? Are you serious ? Sure, it is absolutely extraordinary to create something without getting any money . But we do not have any profit beside that we get postive feedback from our visitors.Apart from that, your comment can not be a reason to delete links.

From the WP:EL guidelines, sites that "Links to sites that primarily exist to sell products or services." should be avoid, as well as sites "Links to sites that require payment or registration to view the relevant content" and as well as adding links that may be of conflict of interest and I believe your site meets these criterias. Corpx 09:42, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, you are wrong. By the way, wikipedia list a lot of websites which contains the points you have mentioned. So I do not really understand why you have a problem with our site. This site does not require any payment, we do not send any advertisement to the members or something like that. The registration is only because we like to get serious members who are really interested in it. We attempt to get a good quality of offers and try to avoid people who like to try it "just for fun".

Sites shouldnt be listed on wikipedia just because they offer a service, whether for free or for a fee. You're openly admitting that you're trying to promote your site by listing it on the page. The first warning for spam even lists this.

“ Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a mere directory of links nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include (but are not limited to) links to personal web sites, links to web sites with which you are affiliated, and links that exist to attract visitors to a web site or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam policies for further explanations of links that are considered appropriate. If you feel the link should be added to the article, then please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. See the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you. ”

Corpx 07:53, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Know Your Trade is an unaffiliated directory that rates and extensively reviews all home exchange agencies. It meets these criteria for listing on Wikipedia: Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues, amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks) or other reasons. Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article, such as reviews and interviews. Exchange queen (talk) 13:59, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Notability

I would like to suggest that the tag questioning the notability of this article be removed. The article refers to at least four independent references to house swapping which can be considered evidence of the notability of the topic. If nothing else, it has been useful for my own research, so thank you very much to the author of the article.

Saamah (talk) 17:24, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

March 2008 Clean-Up

I blew up the article as it was not written in an encyclopedic format. I have devoted it to the two main trends in house swapping: vacation and the transfer of home ownership and sourced them accordingly. I also included a minor mention of the concept as it exists to avoid sectarian violence in Iraq. I did not want to wake the stale debate about external links but I believe there are far too many companies involved to list any one of the trading/commercial sites, but the referenced news articles link to most if the reader wants more information.

and it's definitely notable. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 21:01, 5 March 2008 (UTC)