Talk:Zoho Office Suite

exaggeration

Zoho requires a Firefox extension to host meetings. The line "no client software required" is a bit of an exaggeration.
- Nathan (209.161.239.38 03:57, 22 August 2007 (UTC))

Advertisement or Article?

First off I'd like to say I like Zoho. But I'm going to piggyback on Nathan's comment, and just say that in general this article reads like an advertisement. Statements like "Zoho is well known for its rapid expansion of products and services." are subjective opinion. In my opinion Zoho isn't even well known, let alone well known for anything specific like "rapid expansion of products and services". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Petec35 (talk • contribs) 18:02, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Zoho is a threat to MS Office. It's not hard to realize that big companies try to counter act these kind of threats by any means even through misusing Wikipedia. Zoho deserves a much more comprehensive article than this on Wikipedia, not such biased statements like this. In my opinion Zoho is not only well known but also is exploding and will eventually bury Microsoft with the help of other open software. dashakol —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.72.196.81 (talk) 16:09, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

It has done a great job in Zoho and as user I appreciate its quality, is expected to larger firms seen threatening as the famous skyDrive which can be a hook for use free for the famous office 365 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qmenxxx (talk • contribs) 22:10, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Dates and years

Add some dates and years, please; I'd like to compare when these different SaaSes emerged --sigs —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.181.198.60 (talk) 11:03, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree... I came here to see more about Zoho, and specifically, how long it's been around. I don't want to trust it with my important docs if it is a startup that wont be around in five years.... 216.114.203.207 (talk) 01:37, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

It has done a great job in Zoho and as user I appreciate its quality, is expected to larger firms seen threatening as the famous skyDrive which can be a hook for use free for the famous office 365 --Qmenxxx (talk) 22:17, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

speedy deletion

this is a multi-national corporation with more than 3000 employees. notability is not question. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.164.183.42 (talk) 17:32, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I do not think this article deserves speedy deletion, although it does need neutralizations in several spots --Ofol ^(t) 23:20, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I just did a specific search on "zoho" because a friend asked me to find out more about it. I usually go to wikipedia first rather than google where I get advertised to death, and I was glad to find it. If the article is too much like advertising, radically reduce it, cutting out all the feature stuff. But don't get rid of the article. Tenbergen (talk) 14:33, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I think something was goofed up with the G11 nomination... I removed it and re-added with TWINKLE. It looks much better now. Specifically, the page is listed in the proper categories to get noticed and addressed by an administrator. -- Swerdnaneb 16:42, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

• I don't think I goofed. The headings make the article a product brochure, verbiage is selling and the references provided do not match statements made. I have no objection to Zoho having an article, but verifiability is required as per Wikipedia policy (WP:V). I also object to to emotional selling phrases used (biased) and the article's brochure design. Where's the information about the company, the company's history, it's marketplace, Zoho's customer base? Since this article's focus is product and features, since it has been written as an advertisment, since headings are being used for link spamming, since references are not provided, since references do not contain information stated, since blogs, paid content and internal sources are used as references, it should be removed (or completely rewritten) as per Wikipedia policy. Otherwise, we will no longer be able to trust Wikipedia content. - DustyRain (talk) 07:45, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Unless you nominated the article for deletion in March, I'm not saying you goofed anything. -- Swerdnaneb 15:29, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
    • oops - missed that date tag!! - my speedy tag was last week, nominated to AFD, hopefully authors can address the issues with the article. - cheers - DustyRain (talk) 15:38, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

2nd speedy

As reviewing administrator: I think the article not exclusively promotional & capable of being rewritten in a less promotional manner -- speedy declined. I rewrote slightly for conciseness and to remove some of the pR-like writing, such as repeated use of the name, and excessive subdivisions. More is needed.DGG (talk) 22:13, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Zoho Writer and Polling

We currently have the following in the Zoho Writer section of this article (modified to show the comment and markup):

Zoho Writer originally relied on polling every 8 seconds<!-- I'm not convinced that this is a reliable source -- it attributes the result to a link, but that link doesn't have the quoted text. <ref>Zdnet comments uses this wikipedia page as a source - admission from Zoho that actually its not real time is in Update 2 at bottom</ref> -->, but the latest version uses real time notification from Zoho Chat.

That ZDNet blog post links to an item at blogs.zoho.com/writer/, but the latter says nothing about polling. This is an example of why blogs are not Reliable Sources per se at Wikipedia.

While I can easily believe that Zoho Writer used to poll and now uses a Chat protocol instead, I feel that we would be better off to just not mention this issue in the article (ie., just delete the sentence "Zoho Writer originally relied ... notification from Zoho Chat".) What do other contributors think? Cheers, CWC 15:13, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Never heard of it

"Zoho is well known for its rapid expansion of products and services." Um, no. Never heard of it till it turned up in a Google search for something else. 162.89.0.47 (talk) 17:39, 1 April 2009 (UTC)anon

It was previously called AdventNet. And your ignorance of such a co. doesn't prove that it didn't grow well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.238.84.64 (talk • contribs) 13:50, 19 July 2010

WTF is it called "Zoho" anyhow? 162.89.0.47 (talk) 17:39, 1 April 2009 (UTC)anon

ZOHO is similar to SOHO, which stands for Small Office, Home Office. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.238.84.64 (talk • contribs) 13:50, 19 July 2010

India-based or Indian-based?

Concerning the phrase "developed by AdventNet Inc., an Indian-based company".

Is AdventNet based in India (India-based) or based on efforts of people who are either generally

1. ethnic Asian Indians (Indian-based)
2. or native America Indians (Indian-based)
3. or of interests originating from India (Indian-based) but not necessarily based in India

?

Normally, if a company is based in the USA but Japanese owned we would call it a USA-based company and a Japanese company.

Whereas, if it is based in Japan but owned by American interests, then it would be a Japan-based American company.

e.g. Hong Kong-based British company vs Britain-based Hong Kong Chinese Company.

Hence Jewish Anderstein (talk) 23:29, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Zoho Corp. is a India based company located in Chennai, India. They were formerly known as AdventNet inc that specilazies in SNMP products and application monitoring products. All of the product and application development are carried out from their office in Chennai, India. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.176.249.232 (talk) 15:54, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

--

I have no idea where anyone came up with Zoho Corporation as a India-based company. I have tried to locate any article that would reflect this but have been unable to. On their website under FAQ's Q#2 states Zoho Corp as a US-based company with office HQ in Pleasanton, CA and offices in several locations; the India-based office is listed as the development center. According to Archive.org when it was AdventNet their site listed them as a US-based company as well. The original Zoho Corporation was also based out of US, specifically Sunnyvale, CA.

For info purposes www.zoho.com domain was up for sail until around August of 2004 then the site blocked itself from being archived until around March of 2005.

So I have changed the article to reflect this. --Tekeek (talk) 03:33, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

This Sentence is Terribad

"Google Gears, an application developed by Google that 'enables more powerful web applications, by adding new features to your web browser.'"

What is this sentence trying to say? How does this have anything to do with Zoho? Incomplete. Rewrite or delete.Brakoholic (talk) 13:58, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

comparative sites may be added as a section

comparative sites may be added as a section —Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.62.2.151 (talk) 14:07, 10 September 2009 (UTC) It is both. India & Indian based company — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.170.24.9 (talk • contribs) 08:16, 24 September 2009

Backers?

Are any venture capital firms backing Zoho? Where did (does) their investment come from? Who are the owners of Zoho? I think it would be great if the article provided the answers to these questions. --Westwind273 (talk) 23:08, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Advert or article ?

Zoho Writer topic actually contains the following:

Try our Zoho Writer Android & iOS apps in the following links.

which is then followed by two links [ as if we don't have an External Links section at all ! ]

142.162.44.93 (talk) 09:57, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia! (I did not find more appropriate headline).

Hi all, I'm User:Anupmehra. I've recently edited the article to make it comply with at least two Wikipedia core policies, WP:NPOV and WP:V. It was earlier tagged with few maintenance tags, I've also removed the respective unwanted tags after editing the article.

User:Codename Lisa has contested the changes made to the article, earlier by User:Mdann52 and now by me. I'm inviting all active and interested editors to put forward their opinion on the article to give it a good shape in accordance with Wikipedia policy and guidelines. Thank you! Anupmehra -Let's talk! 13:44, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Upon cursory inspection I did find numerous problems with the article, especially the use of peacock terms. These problems are serious. The only thing that I disagree with is that I don't believe deleting the bulk of the article body is the solution to these problems because they are not great enough to warrant being nuked.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 13:56, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment here and contribution to the article. Beside your removal of peacock terms (I believe, you did so), it still does read very promotional and appears to be a catalog of 'Zoho Office Suite' with no reliable sources discussing them and purely and totally based on primary sources. I'm not sure, if I'm required to say, but I'll make a formal note here, that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and it covers encyclopedic topics consisting contents of encyclopedic importance. We define the encyclopedic topics and contents by 'significant coverage in multiple reliable sources'.

A large portion of the article is removed by me, for third time because the contents simply does not meet Wikipedia standard, as such core policies, Wikipedia neutral point of view and Wikipedia verifiability policy. From my opinion, the article should be dependent heavily on independent reliable sources, rather than primary source (official website).

Changes made by you, does not address the concerns and make the article very much uneycyclopedic. Please do not add sewage to already polluted pond. The article in present shape, after my edit, appears to be good and from here beside revert, we may give the article a new start by expanding it upon Wikipedia guidelines and consensus. Thank you, 14:16, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

And, I just noticed that beside discussing the concerns, I'm being accused of vandalism and edit warring. Well done, Codename Lisa, it is you who is edit warring. I've to ask here, have you some conflict of interest with subject of the article? Anupmehra -Let's talk! 14:19, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

I didn't remove the peacock terms. I have other priorities at hand. So, no surprise it still reads somewhat promotional. But I maintain the the problem can be removed by editing instead of by nuking. There is more good in the contents than bad. An article must inevitably describe its subject. It is the purpose of an article. Therefore, defying its purpose is not an act of solving the problem.

Edit warring is the act of attempting to force one's favorite revision while eluding the consensus-building process. Key signature features of an edit war is commenting on the contributor, not on contribution as well as other forms of personal comments, blanket reverting and not adhering to WP:BRD.

On a side note, it is grave error to call a veteran editor such as yourself a vandal. No, you are NOT a vandal. But do you realize how closely what you are doing matches the definition? You are deleting contents without explaining why. You have alluded to lack of encyclopedic value and have said you cannot "find more appropriate headline" for it. I say it is high time you did. If Captain Kirk was to comment one it, I imagine he'd describe it as "to boldly go where no man knows where and why!" That was my incentive for reverting it. Please think about it: Engaging in an edit war and not knowing why is worse than anything than an admin can do to you.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 14:35, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

• Yes, you have time to edit-war and restore the article to promotional version but not to edit to correct it. When corrected by some other editor, you claim it not to be perfect and do repeatedly revert. I see no good in promotional and unsourced tone and contents based purely on primary source.

Edit-warring? Did I make any edit without leaving an edit summary? If I was, I could have done few more reverts. It is me, who did initiate this discussion here and you are accusing me of edit-warring? It is you, despite discussing the concerns on here, you went on to make revert multiple times. I'm very much disappointed to see apparently an established editor behaving, yes, much likely to a WP:NOTHERE editor. It is you, who chooses to revert instead discussing the changes. You came here to leave a comment only after making a revert. Did you notice it? You choose to post a warning template on my talk page, instead initiating a discussion on article's talk page. You should post a edit-warring template yourself on your talk page, being honest seeing the page history. And, If I really am edit-warring, then I dare you to make a case at ANEW/ANI.

You did not answer one previous question. Have you some 'conflict of interest' with the subject? And, the headline of the discussion is very much appropriate. You see good in 'promotional contents either unsourced or dependent of primary sources', and claim it to be encyclopedic. Is it really what you understand of encyclopedic contents? In my edit, the article has less contents, but at least it is encyclopedic, what Wikipedia is all about (see, WP:ENC).

I do not care for contents, I care of standard. And, that's what I did when removed promtional, unsourced and duly based on primary source contents and you did re-instate the same multiple times (4 times, am I required to cite diff. links?) You say, "[..]An article must inevitably describe its subject. It is the purpose of an article[..]", NO, information present in Wikipedia articles should be based on secondary, independent and reliable sources and the same should be written in a neutral tone. Wikipedia does not accept original research. Maintenance tags are not an excuse to put in unsourced, promotional tone into any Wikipedia article. Do you understand it? I may expand more, if you want me to. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 16:51, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Anupmehra that a significant shortening of the article will be an improvement. The vast majority of the "Components" section cites no sources whatsoever, much less reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Unsourced promotional content (It empowers recruiters with advanced recruitment management tools to build an efficient system where sourcing and hiring can happen at ease.) should be removed on sight. The burden of evidence is on the editor who wants content included. I don't think much, if anything, of value will be lost if the "Components" section is removed outright, and adding those little bits individually would be better than re-adding the spam. Codename Lisa, if you honestly think the line I quoted above, which you re-added four times by now, is appropriate, please provide a policy-based explanation. Huon (talk) 17:35, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

On a side note, it is grave error to call a veteran editor such as yourself a vandal. No, you are NOT a vandal. But do you realize how closely what you are doing matches the definition? You are deleting contents without explaining why. You have alluded to lack of encyclopedic value and have said you cannot "find more appropriate headline" for it. I say it is high time you did. If Captain Kirk was to comment one it, I imagine he'd describe it as "to boldly go where no man knows where and why!" That was my incentive for reverting it. Please think about it: Engaging in an edit war and not knowing why is worse than anything than an admin can do to you. I see a response on why he reverted, and even if he didn't leave any message...period. I still would've seen why he reverted about 12 kb of text; it was all wholeheartedly promotional coatrack, primary sourced blathering about the products of the page. Just look at this bit here;

WordPress 2.6 added support for Gears, to speed up the administrative interface and reduce server hits. However, after Google announced in February 2010 that there would be no further development of Gears, several of these applications have discontinued their support for Gears, including Google Reader and WordPress and Zoho Writer Gears can be enabled on sites where it is otherwise unsupported, by using a Greasemonkey user script one of the Gears engineers has created., but the latest version uses real time notification from Zoho Chat. Zoho Writer comes with LaTeX based Equation Editor under 'Insert' menu, based on palette based limited graphic user interface. If not fluent in LaTeX, user can use some 3rd party Math Equation Editor software such as MathMagic or MathType. MathMagic especially offers "Copy As Zoho equation" menu to allow user Paste the equation optimized in Zoho equation format. Zoho equation(LaTeX) can also be copy and pasted into MathMagic window to re-edit.

— Old revision of page

Just think of this in the mind of any reader, does it look like it's encylopedic to you? It's going on about Greasemonkey scripts, real time notifications, no sourcing, Zoho writer and LaTeX based equation editor...it sounds more like a promotional how-to book describing all of these different functions, rather than an article on Wikipedia giving an overview. We can't have about 20 different products on a Wikipedia page, no sourcing/primary sourcing describing in great detail all about what's so great about them. We need to give the basic overview of what's been established in WP:RS. To me, all the bits about the products needs to be heavily cut down and reflect what RS have said about the products, not the company itself. Tutelary (talk) 17:40, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Sorry, it took while studying all this.

@Huon: I agree that much. But not 12KB worth deletion. I am here to build an encyclopedia, not to raze one. And the contested revision is too low quality. e.g. "a web-based online office suite containing an office suite" is purely awful sentence.

@Tutelary: First, about your content objection: This paragraph could definitely use an improvement and more sources. Deletion of this paragraph is acceptable, though I am not talking about the rest of the 12 KB. And you are right, we do need notability evidence. The rest, I am afraid, I don't agree: I don't know what "encyclopedic" means but if you mean "not violating WP:NOT", yes, I'd say it is encyclopedic. It is definitely not how-to, although it sail close to it. For product description, primary sources are okay. And yes, we can have 30 different products on a Wikipedia page; we already have that on Microsoft Office and the consensus is that it is okay.

As for Anupmehra having supplied a reply, that reply does not contain a reason. Even with presence of the reason, reverting to disputed revision without taking dispute resolution steps is non-collegial edit warring. If you had removed the contents, I'd have discussed with you before reinstating it because you seem to have a very good idea as to why. But right now, it is post ex facto thinking. I have no guarantee that after all this talk, we don't face another revert.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 00:57, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand the comparison to Microsoft Office. Practically every single component, product and version mentioned in that article is itself notable enough to be the subject of an article of its own. That's obviously not the case here. Apparently the only component that has some third-party coverage is Zoho CRM; that's one out of 23, and for even that entry two out of three paragraphs were not based on reliable third-party sources. I do not think re-adding 12k of unsourced or badly-sourced spam to save a two-sentence paragraph from removal is appropriate. I do not think the current section of 5K of badly-sourced content is much better, either. That's more than half the article not based on reliable independent sources, and arguably still spammy despite Knowledgekid87's removal of the worst parts. Huon (talk) 02:16, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

@Huon: If you can find additional sources showing it's notability then expand on it if not then I see no reason why it shouldn't go. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:15, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

@Knowledgekid87: that's the problem - there aren't any! --Mdann52talk to me! 05:04, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Right, I've gone through and removed all the products without sources to 3rd party sites (I don't count the companies own site as sufficent to retain btw). I did a cursory search for sources along the way, and nothing that sounded less spamy than the origional version of the article came up. Tagging is not a replacement for editing, so unless more sources can be found, then reverting now would not help at all. --Mdann52talk to me! 05:16, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

• May Codename Lisa and Knowledgekid87 please explain, are 'maintenance tags' an excuse to disrupt Wikipedia? You can put a {{advert}} and {{refimprove}} tag to put in unsourced and advertisement in to any Wikipedia article? And how, WP:Burden of evidence does not apply on you both? It sucks, when an established editor argues WP:OSE.

Knowledgekid87, How did you know what you've written in the article? For example, "Zoho also offers some services that are not part of the Office, Site24x7 is a website monitoring service that is free on a limited basis.[citation needed]", is it an original research? Why did you re-add ZOHO Corporation in the See also section, when I had removed it leaving an edit-summary that it is already mentioned in the body of the article? Is it how your changes are improving encyclopedia?

Codename Lisa, I'm asking for the third-time, have you some conflict of interest here, with the subject? I'm quoting the last line of your last comment, "I have no guarantee that after all this talk, we don't face another revert". Who is "we" here? -Anupmehra -Let's talk! 05:32, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I think it's notable to ask why he/she is continually trying to add this 12 kb of text that is essentially useless, uses incredibly primary sources that cannot be used to establish notability, and the text itself is just incredibly promotional. This is something I would expect a single purpose account to do, not someone who's been on the site for years and has 26,000+ edits. The reasoning on why I only quoted one paragraph is that I didn't want to quote the entire article. As I said before, we should keep the content deleted, and focus only on what can be substantiated in reliable sources. The older version of the article seemed like a coatrack, listing about 26 non-notable products in a promotional language with hardly any sources. That's not acceptable. Tutelary (talk) 13:47, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Both @Tutelary: and @Anupmehra: need to tone it down a few notches and keep WP:CALM, per WP:BRD the content was removed without consensus, if you are reverted you are supposed to take it to the talkpage, not revert back and say take it to the talkpage which was done here, this leads to edit warring. In any case the majority of the content has been removed, I think we can all agree that if it is un-sourced or poorly sourced then it needs to go which was done. As for my editing you can attack me all you want but that does not help the encyclopedia now does it? I came in as an uninvolved editor who saw that Lisa had brought this to WP:ANI, rather than have a lengthy discussion there, I restored the content per WP:BRD, condensed it as the info had way too many sub-headings and then went on with the discussion from there. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:30, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

I've seen vandalism in a 'consensus' version, does that mean I don't have consensus to revert it if it's been there for more than 20 days? Per WP:SILENTCONSENSUS? No, that's just too bureaucratic and violates the spirit of the policy, not the letter. WP:BRD is an essay, a very good one, and when followed right, works wonders on keeping edit wars away, talk page discussion stable, and content high quality. However, it has to be flexible, especially when more than one person have the same view that the text needs to go. Just because somebody hasn't noticed something doesn't mean it gets to stay in the article forever, especially if there are blatant problems with it. You even agree with yourself that it should be: I think we can all agree that if it is un-sourced or poorly sourced then it needs to go which was done. In the present state of the article, it looks fine as the products are at least supported by a single source mention. Tutelary (talk) 15:38, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

The problem from the start were a lack of sources, the wrong edit summary "cutting out promo stuff" was used. The problem is that things can be promotional but still have valid sources to back up or include, a better edit summary would have been "Per WP:N, this needs to be better sourced as it is just promotional" or something like that. As for bad sources I have seen articles that were spammy turned into nice articles after a few good sources regarding the material were found. Anyways looking ahead the article looks better, if there is to be re-inclusion then it needs to have good sources. Discussing this all here I feel is better than a possible WP:ANI discussion. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:38, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

@Knowledgekid87: - It appears that the article in present shape looks good to you too. I expect Codename Lisa to put forward his/her 'policy-based arguments' to improve the article. And, the problem from the start were not just lack of sources but also promotional tone, and that it is why, the article was tagged with {{advert}} and {{refimprove}} tag. The edit-summary "cutting out promo stuff", not by me, even by someone else, used was absolutely correct. It really was cutting-off promotional stuffs. However, leaving an edit-summary is not compuslory, it is an optional choice. You should perhaps review actual changes, not just 'edit-summaries'. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 22:09, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

If you remove a large chunk of material out of an article you should provide an edit summary though, in disputes making an edit summary or not making an edit summary can add or remove weight to your argument. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:19, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

"sigh" I did include an edit summary describing what I was doing - removing a load of, frankly, promotionally-worded crap. Yes, there was some collateral, but frankly, most of it fails WP:NPOV, and there seemed no need keeping a long list of products with no proof of notability in the main (which, interestingly, I didn't consider at the time). I've done this many a time before, and this is the first time I've ever even had my edits contested for this sort of reason. --Mdann52talk to me! 13:02, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm late to reply but I'd like to my comment here. I'm not sure, who removing those 'unsourced promotional spams' did not provide an edit summary? I was just saying, as it is an optional choice, one should review actual changes instead edit-summaries. All changes made on this page by me include an edit summary which either briefly explained my changes or urged other editor to discuss the issue on talk page. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 13:01, 12 September 2014 (UTC)