Talk:Egnyte

Comment from 2011

It seems there is some some incorrect or misleading information here, and in the page comparing on-line backup services. What evidence is there that there is any code from Egnyte that runs on Linux and does anything? There is none that I could find and their own web site denies it. If you are on a Linux GUI workstation you can log on to the web-based file server and download a file but that shouldn't be surprising. Dreamgear (talk) 15:04, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

This section has been updated to remove those references. Tkeditsj (talk) 16:18, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Reads like a marketing brochure

I wish I knew more about how to flag articles on Wikipedia - reading this really made me want to figure it out - and I tried to find out how but I am afraid I couldn't figure it out. This whole page reads like marketing written by the company.

It is just advertising. Plain and simple.

Examples (my emphasis):

• "The company stands apart from other cloud-based file-sharing services by being able to store files on a company’s existing data center infrastructure"
• "The company launched its Adaptive Enterprise File Services, with the addition of Content Intelligence and Smart Reporting and Auditing services. "
• "In March 2015, the company unveiled its Egnyte for Google Apps solution that allows customers to move files between Google Drive"
• "[CEO] was named the 2010 Storage Superstar and was recognized as a 2010 Emerging Storage Vendor by CRN magazine"

And it goes on and on... Can someone who knows what they are doing please flag this?

Yes, although even better than flagging would be to fix it. So many articles have been sitting around for years with ugly flags on them... W Nowicki (talk) 00:01, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

I tried to pare back the marketing language and stick to a summary of the language used in the cited sources. Tkeditsj (talk) 16:26, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Needs secondary sources

The company's homepage is useless as a source. Even if the company web site actually supported all the assertions in the article, a primary source such as the company web site is a poor source. Unless support for claims about the company can be found in reliable publications (not press releases) we should remove those claims. Just list the company web site once in External Links and leave it out of the main article. Jojalozzo 00:28, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I reworked this a bit and took out the links to the company web site that were being used as sources. Primary sources, especially article subjects' own web sites, are considered unreliable and can only be used in very restricted circumstances. The secondary sources listed in the Reception section should contain all the support needed for the statements in the rest of the article. I don't have time to dig them out but encourage anyone else who can to do so. Jojalozzo 21:14, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Hybrid Cloud article

Contributor(s) to this article (who are presumably conflicted editors) created a Hybrid Cloud article solely to promote their product, in violation of policy; Wikipedia is not a WP:SOAPBOX. Tagging with {{COI}} due to WP:V and WP:NPOV problems (per WP:WHYCOI). -- samj _in^out 21:52, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Hey, calm down and stop biting the newbies. The author specifically wrote on his page, and you are aware of this, " I did not want to violate any COI guidelines and I am open to suggestions on how to make the page unbiased and neutral but still convey the proper messaging.". The contributor obviously did not mean any harm, and agreed to comply with the relevant policies. Work collaboratively to improve the article instead of attacking good faith editors. Marokwitz (talk) 07:21, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

If you see WP:NPOV problems, use the appropriate tag, not the COI tag, preferably insert the tags near the offending paragraph so that the issues can be repaired. I removed the COI tag; OR tag is sufficient for V problems. Marokwitz (talk) 07:30, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Clarify the topic

I think Egnyte is the name of both the company and the product. From the lead sentence I assume the topic of the article is the company. Therefore I removed a lot of content that was about the product. I do not think the product should have its own article so would like to discuss a) how to factor in info about the product without taking the focus away from the company OR b) shifting the topic to the product and just mentioning the company. IMO the product is more interesting and notable than the company and its founder. Jojalozzo 14:04, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

I think that both the product and company should be discussed in this article. I doesn't make sense to describe a company, especially this type of company, without describing what this company sells. In my view it should be re-added based on reliable secondary sources. Marokwitz (talk) 14:13, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

I've updated the sections so we have one (history) that focuses on the company, and another (features) that describes what's in the product. Tkeditsj (talk) 16:28, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Egnyte. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140521084733/http://www.crunchbase.com/organization/egnyte to http://www.crunchbase.com/organization/egnyte

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:27, 21 December 2016 (UTC)