Talk:OpenText/Archives/2014

First Web-Search Engine?

Didn't OpenText have the first web search engine? This is probably worth a mention.

I'm pretty sure they're responsible for the Yahoo! search engine...

This was way back in the day when Yahoo was still run from a trailer somewhere... And Yahoo wasn't even a "real" search engine yet. OpenText had a crawler and a search form with some basic boolean operations and it actually worked ;)

Yes, they did, circa 1995 - 1998, but they weren't THE first. I still have my old RADARLOVE.COM search form for them. At one time, they were the fastest responding engine, competing with Alta Vista. This was, yes, back when Yahoo! was only a static "chapter listing" of the Web (you had to submit your site/page to them for consideration). They were also one of the early companies promoting "intranets" by using Web technology (1995).

I'm adding a note or two about this in the search engine and Livelink sections. -- David Spalding 19:01, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

merger

Since InfoDesign Corporation does not seem to be notable as such, and has been tagged with a notability warning for quite a while, I am proposing to merge the content here.

Merger proposed as part of the Notability Wikiproject --B. Wolterding 18:16, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

The content has been merged. --B. Wolterding 13:54, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Any way to undo this merger? InfoDesign was a standalone company with its own history and should not be a dominate item in the history of Open Text, instead there are about 7 other companies at the same time that should also be noted. Odesta for example is also in the same "history". I think Odesta and InfoDesign should have their own entries. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.229.58.65 (talk) 09:45, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Name

The title of the article is Open Text Corporation (open space text) but the rest of the article as well as the company homepage and logo use OpenText (single word using CamelCase). Can anyone explain why this article should have the name it does? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Last1in (talk • contribs) 12:26, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I think this point is correct. Can we change the title of the article? Who decides on such a thing? Davidhzny (talk) 16:17, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Wow. Hold on here. This is not a slam-dunk. All their corporate materials on their site refer to them as "OpenText" and as they are my client one of my contacts corrected me and told me they are "OpenText", however all their SEC filings use "Open Text". It would seem the official corporate name is "Open Text" yet they use "OpenText" most of the time. ??? Davidhzny (talk) 16:23, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Officially, the corporate name includes a space. This is a surprise to me, and I worked there for 4 years.--Jamie (talk) 16:50, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Comment

I would just like to mention I find this page very useful, and I do not feel 'advertised', because I was looking for info on OpenText. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.109.120.139 (talk) 11:53, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree. I've been watching and using this page for a while (maybe half a year?) and I fail to see the harm. I think it's a good tension between Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia and the Advert warning. The idea that "much of it could be removed without damage" seem antithetical to me. As long as it is sources and relevant, what possible use is there in shredding it? Just an opinion, though. Consensus must rule, but I sure hope consensus arrives at the same conclusion. Cheers & Thanks, Last1in (talk) 21:55, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Most of the page is only useful if you want to read Open Text's usual advertising pitch, it is unusual for any page so obviously used for self promotion to survive so long in Wiki. I'm not suggesting that the page be removed, merely that the non-notable content is removed per Wiki guidelines.Plingsby (talk) 09:29, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree that this site is effectively advertising, a super-detailed business history that goes beyond objectively 'notable'. Adobe Systems, a company 40-odd times larger, has an entry no longer than Open Text's. I think this one should be reduced to what's notable to the public, and have fewer sections and links to the corporate web-site, which it not only duplicates but enlarges upon. Emperor Zhark (talk) 20:04, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

acronyms

This sentence, In 2012, OpenText transitioned from ECM to EIM technologies and now provides solutions in the EIM categories of ECM, BPM, CEM, Information Exchange, and Discovery. which was in the introduction has five acronyms that are known only to high level managers of corporate information systems. They are the sort of thing one expects to see in an advertisement directed at them.

Whoever wrote this, or is knowledgeable, needs to rewrite that sentence to spell out in words what they stand for and put them in wiki-links to the relevant Wikipedia articles. Nick Beeson (talk) 14:27, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

But then, the entire article is a sad, laughable marketing plea:

2012-Present: The Global Leader in Enterprise Information Management (EIM) Lol, ah yes, OpenText is canonically that. I read it in the OED entry for "EIM."

It would be more useful to delete all and start over, IMO.108.223.82.159 (talk) 00:55, 9 February 2014 (UTC)