Is Yahoo! Corporate Editing Their Competitor's Wikipedia Entries?
Zooomr Wikipedia Entry Hosted on ZooomrDisclaimer: I am the Chief Evangelist for the photo sharing start up Zooomr.
Update: Flickr Co-Founder and Yahoo Flickr Chief Stewart Butterfield responds in the comments below.
So today when checking out the latest edits to Zooomr's Wikipedia entry I noticed that a recent change had been made saying that many of Zooomr's features, page designs and particular implementations" were "exact copies" of Flickr. When checking the IP address for the change in question 216.145.49.15 it came back through a reverse DNS directory look up as coming from Yahoo Corporate. The same IP address also edited lots of other Yahoo type Wikipedia entries including positive Flickr entries and even Flickr's Caterina Fake's personal biography.
While it's impossible to know for sure who at Yahoo could be editing Zooomr's Wikipedia entry, it doesn't sit right with me that a competitor would be doing this at all.
Now while Zooomr has been doing lots of innovative work in the photo sharing space and even today has many features that Flickr does not (trackbacks, geotagging, smartsets, most famous, most photos, etc.), I think someone certainly could make a case that we also have many features that are similar to flickr. But I think to say that many of our features, page designs and implementations are "exact copies," is a bit much. I also am not sure that this is the appropriate type of entry one company should be making in Wikipedia about their competitor.
Ever since Zooomr launched we seem to have been vilified by many out there as merely another "flickr clone." It's as though how dare someone else try to innovate in a space dominated by beloved flickr. And while we do have today (and continue to plan for in the future) many features that Flickr does not, we still seem to be faced with this barrage of attacks by people who would seem to just want Zooomr to go away.
Once upon a time Yahoo! was king of search. Then guess what happened. A little company called Google came and ate their lunch. I'm sure many might have called Google a Yahoo clone as well. After all they were in the same space as Yahoo doing essentially the same thing. And so what's wrong with this? What's wrong with one company trying to innovate in another company's space?
The ironic thing is that I love flickr. I've used it passionately as one of it's most active users for the past year or so. I plan to use it well into the future. I just happen to think that there is room in the world for more than one photo sharing site and that Zooomr offers me things that I was asking for passionately at Flickr (like trackbacks) that Flickr does not. I believe that there is room for both services to exist side by side. The world of photo sharing is an awfully big place.
But it certainly doesn't sit right with me that a corporate Yahoo IP address would come back as editing our Zooomr Wikipedia entry. Maybe I've gotten this all wrong and there is some other explanation to this. This is certainly possible and I'd love to hear it if there is. And if it actually is someone from Yahoo editing our Wikipedia entry it would be nice for you to come out and actually identify yourself rather than try and change our entry anonymously.
posted by Thomas Hawk at 1:21 PM
31 Comments:
It seems Cameron Reilly from TPN (The Podcast Network) is looking for a new photosharing account. He is a high profile podcaster and media CEO. Sound like a good opportunity for Zooomer's Chief Evangelist to do some door-step proselytizing?
Cameron Reilly asks: Flickr Pro or Zooomr?
http://reilly.typepad.com/cameronreilly/2006/07/flickr_pro_or_z.html
My Flickr Pro account expires on Sept 1. Should I pay another US$25 for another year or should I change to another photo service, like, for example, Zooomr? What other online photo services are you kids using? Any recommendations for me?
Flickr does have some nice features, but they're getting WAY too much credit for just about everything. Their UI is classic form over function, with actual usability and consistency playing fourth fiddle to Web 2.0 hype, and they DID NOT INVENT the damn online photo sharing space! Given that Flickr launched in 2004 and Fotolog has been up and running since 2002, why is nobody calling Flickr a Fotolog clone?
This has bugged me, too. The founders never seem to quite come out and say that they invented the space, but when asked about it or credited with it, they never seem to correct anybody, either, which I think is really disingenuous. This alone is enough to make me want to dig deeper into Zoomr, regardless of your additional features.
(Disclosure: I'm a Flickr member. I also have a Zoomr account but I haven't really done anything with it yet.)
That same IP was on my blog today and my sitemeter shows this. http://www.sitemeter.com/?a=stats&s=s15plmccordj&v=53&r=9&vlr=8&pg=1&d=729
I hope this lets you see it without being logged into sitemeter. It is funny that the referring URL was... http://technorati.com/search/zooomr . This doesn't bother me too much because I am different. I have stayed loyal to Yahoo and will continue unless they really offend me some way in the future. I do understand it would not look good if Yahoo is in fact modifying entries of others. Do you think that maybe requiring people to identify themselves before they modify entries would work? I disagree that Google is superior to Yahoo. I do believe there is a culture of people that are in this Google cult following. I do like Google but to me I prefer Yahoo. Just my opinion.
Paul
while I agree that flickr certainly doesn't have any claims over the photosharing space, and i agree that another company will inevitably come along and be better (possible zooomr), I can understand where someone's dislike of zooomr might come from. if I was part of flickr and saw a company come along that copied my logo i'd be kind of piss. say what you will, but the zooomr logo is a clone of flickr's logo, from the r that's colored, to the little "beta" that's right in the logo. frankly, if I didn't know better i'd think zooomr was a joke/parody site. i remember back a long time ago I registered the domain BAO Systems, copied BEA's color and dots, as a joke.
Thanks for the link Paul, it does work by the way and does show Corporate Yahoo coming to your blog via a Technorati search for Zooomr.
Actually I don't have any problem with this. I think using Technorati to track both your own company and your competitors is probably smart. I use Technorati searches for Flickr myself and use Technorati searches for Zooomr myself all the time as well. One way to get even better Technorati search results for Zooomr by the way is to do a search for Zooomr OR Zooomr. That's because our name gets misspelled with two O's as often as people get it right with three O's.
But I think to anonymously change the wikipedia enteries of your competitors is something different and pushes things too far.
I'm frankly surprised that Yahoo would allow their employees to anonymously change competitor wikipedia enteries. But maybe this just speaks to the type of competitive culture that they would seek to foster there.
I'm also surprised that Yahoo! would see Zooomr as such a threat to them. Really we are just a super small company trying to put out super rich features in the photo sharing space. We don't have anywhere near the traffic or members or photos or any other measuring metric of Flickr. We don't have Yahoo's deep pockets to support us. It would seem that there are much bigger photo sharing sites that they could set their sites on rather than mucking around with our wikipedia entry.
[I'm a Flickr co-founder and manage it within Yahoo!]
Thomas, before you go out on the warpath, know that there are over 10,000 employees at Yahoo! I'm sure a lot of Yahoos edit a lot of different pages. This is certainly not official Flickr or Yahoo! policy so it's not quite right to say "Yahoo! Corporate" is doing anything.
Think about the stuff you say and whether it counts as representative of the companies you work for. Just like Zooomr's official position isn't that "Tim O'Reilly is an asshole" or Stone & Youngberg's official position isn't that "Jill Greenberg is a sick woman who should be arrested for child abuse", "Zooomr has copied several things from Flickr" is not some official Yahoo! (or Flickr) policy (regardless of the veracity.)
Having said that, I'm a little surprised you'd even point this out. I just looked at Zooomr's entry and it's history and Kris has done a lot of editing, some of which looks a lot more like marketing than a NPOV display of the facts (example). This is generally considered poor form and you sound a little like the pot calling the kettle black (it helps not to think of it as "your" entry - it's Wikipedia's, and it should be objective). In any case, Wikipedia entries tend to take care of themselves over the long run, so you shouldn't lose much sleep over it.
On the larger question - there is lots of room for innovation and I don't think Flickr will ever attract more than a small percentage of people sharing photos online (since *most* people will eventually do so). No one is saying "It's as though how dare someone else try to innovate in a space dominated by beloved flickr." In fact, I've never heard a single person criticize Zooomr for being innovative ;)
Nicolai:
"The founders never seem to quite come out and say that they invented the space, but when asked about it or credited with it, they never seem to correct anybody, either, which I think is really disingenuous."
As far as I remember, no one has ever asked if we invented online photo sharing. I've also never seen an article that credited Flickr with its creation. If I did, I'd probably correct it -- I have, for example, corrected several articles which said we invented tagging (Joshua Schachter from delicious suggested it us several times before we realized it'd be a good idea).
I've also explained in dozens of interviews and public speeches that we've taken ideas and inspiration from all over the place and that, to me, innovation is a lot like making music -- a lot of innovation is recombinant, new juxtapositions and otherwise playing with a set of actions and methods that all done before but putting them together in a new way.
"Given that Flickr launched in 2004 and Fotolog has been up and running since 2002, why is nobody calling Flickr a Fotolog clone?"
Probably because it has essentially *no* similaries to Fotolog, other than the ability to add comments and the ability to add friends (and the latter works in a completely different way). Fotolog was definitely an inspiration though - the pure simplicity was something we envied (one look at a page and you got what it was about, and Flickr's still too confusing for most users).
Six months after we launched, I can think of these differences between Flickr and Fotolog: mac and windows uploaders, Organizr, tags, favoriting, sets, groups, privacy levels, contact levels, live chat with drag and drop sharing, buddy icons, notes, inline editing, the whole api ... and that's just off the top of my head. So, that's probably why no one said we were a clone. (On the other hand, maybe the similarities between Flickr and Zooomr are a matter of subjective perception, but when I first saw Zooomr I assumed it was a parody too.)
Zooomer is a copy of flickr, are you embarassed by your actions?
Why is someone at yahoo wrong for saying what is true?
Stewart, I think you miss the point entirely. I am not saying that 100% of what comes from a corporate IP address is the official opinion of a corporation.
I'm saying that it's probably not the best thing for someone at Yahoo to be anonymously editing their competitors wikipedia entries from a Yahoo IP address.
I have no problem if someone at Yahoo blogs about Jill Greenberg or Tim O'Reily or any host of other things. It's not really the same thing as making derogatory comments about a direct competitor on the wikipedia page about said competitor.
I think it's poor form for you to try and suggest that these are the same things. They clearly or not.
I think it's also a bit of an exaggeration to suggest that I'm "going on the warpath." I'm merely pointing out something that doesn't quite sit right with me. I'm sure you'd feel the same way if an anonymous Zooomr IP address were to edit Flickr's wikipedia entry and say that your service was a direct copy of Zooomr.
Instead of dealing with the clearly questionable ethical nature of the edit though you'd instead try to obfuscate it as being the same thing as my blogging about Jill Greenberg or Tim O'Reily. Neither whom are direct competitors of mine.
It would seem to me that you are trying to justify this action by one of your employees. Am I correct in my understanding of your position that Yahoo doesn't object to this behavior -- because you don't for a second in your comment suggest that there is anything wrong with this edit?
And while at it, let me ask you a particularly direct question. Do you know who at Yahoo! edited the wikipedia entry on Zooomr?
People are being mean to zooomr?
Zooomer is a piece of crap, flickr is someting great. The top photographer on flickr just got a job for toyota, the top photographer on zooomer is a crappy paid shill blogger.
Quit thinking people give a crap about you or your stupid zoooooooooomr.
Thomas, I didn't miss your point at all. I agree that it is not the best thing for someone at Y! to make an edit like that. I wish it hadn't happened.
However, you did completely miss my point. I wasn't saying editing the Wikipedia entry was like you blogging about Jill or Tim. I'm saying that it would be wrong for a reader to assume your opinions about Jill or Tim were official positions of the companies you worl for. Similarly, it would be wrong to assume this edit was the official position of Yahoo! or Flickr.
The *title of your post* was "Is Yahoo! Corporate Editing Their Competitor's Wikipedia Entries?" You attributed the edit to as having been done by "a competitor" and the "company". It was not. It was done by some person (who almost certainly is a Yahoo! employee since they were on the network).
And to answer your question: no, I don't know who it was. Regardless, I can assure you that it is not coming from "Yahoo! Corporate".
(Btw, by "warpath" I meant that you usually don't just "point out that something doesn't quite sit right". Usually it means posting on several blogs and fora, soliciting diggs, etc. I was asking that you think about how you state it before you start with the promotional activitiess.)
Last, a direct question for you: How do you feel about Kris editing the Zooomr entry to add positive references to Zooomr and himself and comparisons to Flickr? Is that substantially different?
There's an obvious difference here:
Thomas did not use his employers' facilities to enable his comments about Jill Greenberg. The Yahoo employee obviously did do this, hence the association is easily made. (If Thomas signed his posts with thomas@hisemployer.com then Stewart might have a point).
On the other hand, Kris creating or editing his own Wikipedia entries is simply hilarious. Every geek with half a brain knows that this is a huge no-no.
There is a HUGE difference between signing an entry with "editor@yahoo-corp.com" and an IP address that belongs to Yahoo!
If editor@yahoo-corp.com edited those entries then Thomas might be more justified in his outrage...but an IP address means NOTHING.
As pointed out, Yahoo is a huge corporation. Could be a bored intern who likes Flickr. Could be Stewart. Who knows, and really, who cares.
1. address whether the edits are correct or incorrect
2. let Wikipedia sort it out - Zooomr/Flickr is not so special that Wikipedia breaks down
Stewart, first off you will notice that my headline is asking a question not stating a fact. I'm asking the question as a derogatory comment about Zooomr was made from a Yahoo IP address. While Zooomr may have similarities to Flickr as Flickr had similarities to Photobucket, Zooomr most certainly is not an "exact copy" of Flickr. Did we copy Flickr's geotagging? How about Flickr's trackbacks? Did Zooomr get the idea to add Zooomrtations because Flickr did it first? Has Zooomr drawn influence from Flickr just as you drew influence from Photobucket? Sure.
In my article I indeed reference the fact that it could have been anyone from Yahoo and that I have no idea who it is. I clearly make reference to the fact that it could have been anyone. It could have been Yahoo Corporate it could have been someone else. Hence the question. I would, however, classify the individual who made the comment as likley a competitor and as likely an employee of your company Yahoo! (as you yourself admit)
I'm not sure how Yahoo's network IP structure works, if IP addresses are assigned to units etc., but this same address had previously edited both Flickr enteries and Caterina Fake's personal biography.
Let me ask you another question. Are you saying that the IP address in question could have come from any single computer at Yahoo? Or does Yahoo assign IP addresses to units/teams/areas? Because it seems odd to me that this same IP address also has been used to previously edit both other Flickr entries and Caterina Fake's personal biography on wikipedia.
I'm glad that we agree that it's not good that someone at Yahoo would be entering derogatory comments into the wikipedia on Zooomr.
As to the "warpath" allegation. I did nothing which you allege in this post. I did not submit this to any forums. I did not solicit diggs for the story. And this is the only blog that I published it to.
As to Kris' edits, lets talk about those. Most of these are him either offering up screen shots of the service, correcting spelling type errors, etc. I can only imagine the single entry that you might object to being that where he submits a link to the most popular story about Flickr on the internet written by Michael Arrington over at Tech Crunch. I'm not sure that I find these things particularly offensive and would certainly not equate them with negatively vandalizing a competitor's entry.
I think you'd have a similar problem as I mentioned above if a Zooomr IP address was to negatively and incorrectly characterize the Flickr wikipedia entry.
Is your problem with Kris editing mostly non controversial entries on Zooomr the fact that he doesn't do it anonymously?
Because if you have a problem with a company editing their own data I'm surprised as this same IP address from Yahoo has put pro Yahoo entries in all over the place. So let's see what else this IP address has edited. Well they added a Yahoo link to the Gay Pride entry. They changed an entry which alleged a security breach at Flickr was why Flickr Live was dropped. They cite the fact that Caterina Fake worked on the set of Seinfeld. They cite the fact that you personally are not just Caterina Fake's husband but also the co-founder of Flickr. They edited an entry which was critical of Yahoo 360 accusing it of "jumping the trend wagon". They change an entry saying that the first tag cloud appeared on Flickr instead of elsewhere. They alter the Google Wikipedia entry to say that someone else pioneered the selling of key word advertising.
There are many other entries by the same Yahoo IP address and they have edited other competitor sites as well. CNET, Microsoft, Google.
This has been going on for years which is why I'd ask the question if Yahoo has a policy about editing their competitor's wikipedia entries. It certainly is atleast tollerated there it would seem.
Tinou, and as to wikipedia sorting thing out, you are right. Very quickly after the edit was made, someone on wikipedia pointed out that the edit was made from a Yahoo corporate IP address. This is what alerted me to the fact.
I thought you had to be noteworthy to get a wikipedia entry.
Zooomer is a cheap copy
Geez! Hang it up already! Do you actually think Yahoo! would have an official policy about editing Wikipedia articles? And do you really think there may be some corporate-sponsored action to discredit Zooomr through your Wikipedia entry? Come on! Sure it's not a very good idea for anyone to edit any Wikipedia article with anything but verifiable facts, much less to do it to a competitor's entry. And if I worked for Zooomr, I'd probably be pissed enough to blog about it. But your blog post spends more time defending Zooomr against Flickr rather than addressing the issue at hand. And I have to agree with Stewart that your blog post suggests to the reader that this might be something other than a random employee doing something of questionable integrity.
A simple post of "a Yahoo! employee edited Zooomr's entry on Wikipedia and I think that sucks" probably would have elicited more agreement than a diatribe on Flickr vs. Zooomr or Yahoo! vs. Google (where did THAT come from?) or comments on stifling innovation.
BTW, let me add the disclaimer that I work for Yahoo!, but in no way even remotely related to Flickr or Y! Photos. I just happen to be a huge fan of Thomas' photography and am an avid reader of his blog (as well as being a pro user of both Flickr and Zooomr, but mostly because I got both for free).
i don't use Flickr or Zooomr, but i do use Wikipedia (although i have never made an edit). however Kris editing the Zooomr entry with positive spin seems at least as unseemly as a Yahoo employee editing one with negative spin. (calling it vandalism seems to be a real stretch). it is hard to imagine much that Kris would write would be NPOV. and certainly he does speak for the company whether or not some anonymous Yahoo employee does.
i used to scroll through all of the Zooomr/Flickr entries here as they didn't really interest me. now those posts are a little more interesting as they always seem to be trying to pick a fight with Flickr over petty things. (publicity?) i do visit THDC less now than i used to since it became somewhat of a marketing blog.
Thomas, some friendly advice from a long time reader of your blog and admirer of your photos. You are really starting to annoy me with your petty tirades about your employer's competition. Quit your whining and get back to what make your blog compelling in the first place, writing about digital media and sharing great photographs. The path you're on right now is making you a laughing stock and you don't seem to realize it.
That's all dude.
I think the last comment was a bit harsh, but I will say this: I loved seeing Thomas's photos on Flickr and starting reading his blog as a result. I find the posts on Tivo and digital media issues to be informative and enjoyable and that's what keeps me coming back.
Over time, however, I've noticed something about Thomas's interactions with others. He tends to assume the worst about other people and will (over)react in a rather confrontational way based on these assumptions. When others react to his confrontational style, it seems to reinforce the whole behavior pattern.
Why is Thomas constantly having confrontations with security guards, with Jill Greenberg, and with other Flickr members? I'm not saying Thomas is always wrong in these disputes. But the frequency and intensity of these issues says a lot about the way Thomas approaches other people.
I'm obviously late to the party, but I think the last couple of points nail it pretty well. It's a petty little thing. Fix the entry if it's wrong, then it will be Wikiality. Thomas, do you think Yahoo! should institute a corporate policy of forbidding users from editing Wikipedia at work? Maybe they should get approval first. Yahoo! most likely trusts their users to surf around the 'net respectfully, and I'm sure most do. Unless there's defamation or flat-out vandalism, I think Yahoo! is best served to not investigate or change their policies.
And honestly, do you really believe that Yahoo!/Flickr would make it a corporate mission to edit the Wikipedia page of Zoomr? It wouldn't even make sense.
翻译公司
深圳翻译
深圳翻译公司
英语翻译
日语翻译
法语翻译
德语翻译
俄语翻译
藏语翻译
韩语翻译
泰语翻译
藏语翻译
韩语翻译
泰语翻译
越南语翻译
越南语翻译
维族语翻译
瑞典语翻译
柬埔寨翻译
土耳其语语翻译
西班牙语翻译
葡萄牙语翻译
能源翻译
乌克兰翻译
地质翻译
合同翻译
法律翻译
机械翻译
深圳翻译公司
英语翻译
日语翻译
法语翻译
德语翻译
俄语翻译
印度语翻译
瑞典语翻译
标书翻译
医学翻译
外贸翻译
食品翻译
保险翻译
化工翻译
农业翻译
汽车翻译
通信翻译
建筑翻译
物流翻译
工程翻译
广州翻译公司
深圳翻译
印尼语翻译
阿拉伯语翻译
马来西亚语翻译
菲律宾语翻译
意大利语翻译
爱尔兰语翻译
柬埔寨翻译
土耳其语语翻译
西班牙语翻译
汉译日，日译汉
金融翻译
新疆租车
珠海翻译公司|
佛山翻译公司|
惠州翻译公司
汕头翻译公司
三亚翻译公司
东莞翻译公司
深圳无线导览|
口译|
翻译公司非常好
的翻译公司欢迎您的访问！
葡萄牙语翻译
外语翻译
小语种翻译
广州深圳同声传译|
证件翻译
合同翻译
法律翻译
机械翻译
印尼语翻译
阿拉伯语翻译
马来西亚语翻译
菲律宾语翻译
意大利语翻译
希腊语翻译
标书翻译
医学翻译
外贸翻译
食品翻译
技术翻译
化工翻译
农业翻译
汽车翻译
通信翻译
英译汉，汉译英
在这里我给大家介绍一家值得信赖的深圳搬家公司，在深圳多次出色的完成了搬家、搬厂等任务，欢迎有需求的朋友拨服务联系一下他们！深圳市顺顺发搬家服务有限公司,是经深圳市工商局批准注册的一家专业的深圳搬家搬厂。自成立多年以来已经多次的为深圳企业、个人提供了优质的深圳搬家服务，现在以拥有多台各种吊装和运输的车辆，并且培养了一批经验丰富、高素质、高水平的专业深圳空调拆装员工。长期以来龙华搬家承蒙深圳市民和各大企业的关照，公司不断完善“顺顺发福田搬家，诚信到家”的经营理念，成为2006年“11部委反商业欺诈、树诚信经营”的加盟企业
清洁服务公司深圳市清洁服务公司成立于1999年，是深圳市最早提供深圳管道疏通，疏通厕所下水道,，清理化粪池化油池,、防水，上下水安装维修相关服务深圳市清洁服务公司之一，现在全市有20多个分部。专车吸粪、专业化队伍和各种先进机械，承接各种疑难管道疏通、专车清理化粪池、防水堵漏，上下水安装及维修等工程
深圳装饰工程有限公司是由热爱装修专业人士创办，经深圳市工商行政管理局注册登记的专业深圳装修公司。该深圳装饰公司装修队伍工种齐全，云集了全国各地的专业深圳装修施工人员深圳装修服务
雅美居装饰设计有限公司有十一年,深圳装修,深圳装潢设计经历，公司承接：深圳装饰设计服务、本装修公司处处为客户着想，深受客户好评，本公司以成为有实力的深圳装修公司之一
我家的房子要装修了.你们能给我推荐一家深圳装修公司要能在深圳装修过多年，对于深圳装饰非常了解。要求优秀的深圳装饰公司谢谢哟!修工程
深圳市鹏城搬迁有限公司成立于1999年,是经深圳市运输局批准和工商局注册成立的一家具有独立法人资格的专业深圳搬家搬厂、还有深圳吊装、深圳搬迁公司！服务,深圳市深圳拆装空调服务，拥有最完善的搬迁设备和一批技术人员，提供深圳托运公司．上海物流公司
公司成立于1994年,是经深圳市运输局批准和工商局注册成立的一家具有独立法人资格的专深圳罗湖搬家公司、搬厂、搬写字楼、拆装空调、起重吊装的有限责任制公司，拥有最完善的深圳搬厂搬迁设备和一批技术精、经验好的员工队伍。为了给需要的朋友就近联系，我们特设为了顺顺发深圳南山搬家公司、 深圳福田搬家公司、福田搬家公司 深圳宝安搬家公司、深圳宝安搬家公司 深圳吊装公司为您就近提供服务！
在这里我给大家介绍一家值得信赖的深圳搬家公司，在深圳多次出色的完成了搬家、搬厂等任务，欢迎有需求的朋友拨服务联系一下他们！深圳市顺顺发搬家服务有限公司,是经深圳市工商局批准注册的一家专业的深圳搬家搬厂。自成立多年以来已经多次的为深圳企业、个人提供了优质的深圳搬家服务，现在以拥有多台各种吊装和运输的车辆，并且培养了一批经验丰富、高素质、高水平的专业深圳空调拆装员工。长期以来龙华搬家承蒙深圳市民和各大企业的关照，公司不断完善“顺顺发福田搬家，诚信到家”的经营理念，成为2006年“11部委反商业欺诈、树诚信经营”的加盟企业
广州市鸿发装饰工程有限公司,是广州市建设局首批核准的具有施工资质的专业广州装修公司；广州装饰公司以灵活的独立发展模式,本公司承接广州装修,宾馆装修、星级酒店、广州装饰高级写字楼、大型商场、民用小区、高尚住宅、大型厂房、机场、火车站、码头、古建筑等各类大小装修工程
深圳市时代物流有限公司是一家深圳货运公司经市运输批准许可，工商、税务注册成立的具有独立法人资格的深圳物流公司，中型深圳货运的企业。专用香港货运货物存放仓库5600多平方米,为企业、商场提供24小时仓储,深圳货运公司配送服务。
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home