Talk:Salesforce

This article still reads like an advertisment produced by Salesforce.com marketing. The first paragraph which should simply describe what this product is. Move the accolades to a section that includes criticism for a balanced lookTylerchill (talk) 22:11, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

This article reads like it was produced by a marketing firm (and it very likely was). It sounds more like a press release or the introduction to an annual report than a NPOV encyclopedia article. Therefore, I have added the advert tag. If you are knowledgeable enough about salesforce to edit this into a more formal, NPOV, and encyclopedic format (I am not), please do so. Kwertii 22:19, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

The page edit history at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Salesforce.com&action=history provides ample and obvious evidence that this page is the target of one or more ongoing Wikispam campaigns by marketing companies representing Salesforce and/or its addon app vendors. See e.g. the frequent anonymous insertion of blatantly POV accolades to the insertion of links like "". Marketing guys, you've been made. Wikipedia is not a billboard. Editors, be on guard. Kwertii 22:29, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I've gotten rid of some advertising/marketese type stuff (apparently that's not the first time this has happened), but it could use some additional work on NPOV and less ad tone. I'll keep an eye on it as well. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 22:52, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Someone keeps adding a link to Sofia Works. They are a UK Consulting Partner for Salesforce.com and I do not think they are notable enough to be linked to. I assume Salesforce.com have many partners and the article cannot list them all. --Sleepyhead 13:42, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Please read below an extract from the Wiki guidelines on adding external links. This site contains relevant information about salesforce.com, and will aparently be further enhanced to provide users with more information about the software.

"What should be linked

Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article, such as reviews and interviews." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:External_Links) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 90.152.0.58 (talk) 10:45, August 23, 2007 (UTC)

It may have been changed (I can never figure out the history page), but as a user of SF, I think this looks pretty NPOV. There is no "this app is the best in the world and the other ones pale in comparison" type of things that I would consider NPOV. Citable sources are definitely needed, but at the risk of incensing others, I am going to remove the ad tag. Mechroneal 16:56, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Hello folks, I manage social media at salesforce.com, and I officially represent them on Wikipedia. I am not new to Wikipedia, and I know, and will play by the rules. This article is sub-par, and I'd like to help in any way I can. In the immediate time frame, I can:

• clarify which partners are noteworthy and which are not
• provide guidelines on our brand names
• help correct factual inaccuracies with sources

In a slightly longer timeframe, I'd like to help improve the flow & content of this article.

- Kingsley2.com (talk) 00:57, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

• Kingsley, maybe you can succinctly explain what the salesforce.com product(s) is? I had to go to your website to get any idea at all. Even there, nearly every explanation of products and services is pitched using marketing language that is targeted for developers and programmers (along with the accompanying hype). Is there any way to get an explanation of what the product is (not the benefits of using it, etc.)? Stevenmitchell (talk) 15:31, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
• Steve, I could probably help with this topic. I used to work there and then had my own business helping small businesses and nonprofits use the product. I had to spend a lot of time explaining what features meant, and which ones were feasible at what cost. Will try to get to it this weekend because it's kinda fun to help out and I'm trying to get up to speed on the wiki markup. Oakye —Preceding undated comment added 23:46, 6 April 2009 (UTC).

I propose that the first reference to Salesforce.com stay, and change all following references in the body of the article to Salesforce only, without the ".com" (which is how it's more commonly referred to in conversation). Any disagreements? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Crysb (talk • contribs) 13:18, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I'd say usage is 50/50 in conversation. I do agree that the article needs to stop going back & forth. Just my $.02 Midlakewinter (talk) 00:22, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

There actually is a difference. Salesforce.com is the company, and Salesforce (without .com) is the name of the web application. They do get mixed up sometimes, but that's the official difference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.210.194.150 (talk) 02:07, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Salesforce.com is only used in financial documents, I guess. Otherwise both the company and the product are called Salesforce. It is better to standardize the article with Salesforce.Amart13 (talk) 11:38, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Requesting comment on this language "This reinforces the view that Salesforce arbitrarily change features offered with no explanation." "The view" is particularly difficult to cite and seems POV to me. Additionally, this (if true) seems like a minor feature grievance and I'm not sure if it is relevant or valuable to article viewers. Is it proper to relocate to criticisms or remove this language? Midlakewinter (talk) 12:16, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

It seems to be unsourced commentary, and from a cursory glance I didn't see any sourcing for the 'silent removal' comment either. Are there sources for either of these comments, or are they original research? In either case, the 'view' comment should most definitely be removed without an explicit source.

Unrelated to the RFC, the article seems to be a bit of a mess in general. I notice there was a comment in October last year above about the mix of Salesforce and Salesforce.com references. The company seems to refer to itself (as opposed to its products) on its website exclusively as 'salesforce.com' (with lowercase S where it doesn't appear at the beginning of a sentence), and this should be the way the company is referred to consistently throughout the article. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 00:21, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

You are absolutely correct re: salesforce.com. I hadn't noticed that. Will update for that & the 'view' comment. Thanks Midlakewinter (talk) 00:28, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I recognized the Chatter commercials in the Super Bowl XLV halftime show and described their relations to the Black Eyed Peas and Will.i.am. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.185.8.42 (talk) 01:38, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

A lot of the entry's content is specific to salesforce.com's product and not the company itself. I would think it makes sense to vastly slim down that content. Using Hubspot#Products_and_services as a model. Any thoughts?Midlakewinter (talk) 22:31, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Where did the product information go? I came here looking for the article for the "product" that seems to be salesforce.com. There's clearly such a product, for example, SF has a manual for it here (28 megabyte, 3818 pages and so it may take a while to download). --Marc Kupper|talk 07:18, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

In the main text, it says "The Company was founded in March 1996..." yet in the box on the right it says 1999. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.217.31.4 (talk) 19:15, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to propose merging the Force.com article into Salesforce.com. Though Force.com is mentioned in the New York Times, this is not a sufficient reason to create a separate article about the product. The section on the product in Force.com is unsourced, so will benefit from the NYT article to verify it exists. Failing a merger, the Force.com article is ripe for a Articles for Deletion discussion IMO. Sionk (talk) 18:39, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree, I don't think Force.com merits an article, and as the talk page indicates, it has been of most interest to Salesforce.com staff who wisely have refrained from editing the page. Leutha (talk) 18:26, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

You both bring up good points and I agree that Force.com doesn't seem to be able to stand on its own. A merger with Salesforce.com would be a good move. Stesmo (talk) 22:04, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

I think as long a a redirect from Force.com to Salesforce.com exits it would be beneficial. I used this content as a reference to verify Force.com was a website, platform related to Salesforce.com and that I wasn't being phished. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.160.96.25 (talk) 15:09, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

I support the merger. Content seems to be duplicated on both sides, among the confusing and overlapping product line. Its been a year since the merge was proposed, and so I'm being WP:BOLD and completing the merger. With the exception of 2 statements in the Release Cycles section, and 1 statement in the Lead section (data centers), all content has been included into Salesforce.com. Can someone with better knowledge of the Salesforce.com series of products please clean-up the list of services? -- Wonderfl ^(reply) 17:02, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

The article has a very confusing list of products/services offered by Salesforce Inc. I'm responsible for merging Force.com with Salesforce.com but yet I have only the most basic understanding of the overlapping terms, sales jargon and product suite titles. Not to mention all the acquisitions that were also re-branded and merged into the "Salseforce1 platform" (or whatever they call the overall platform).

Can someone with some knowledge of the product line please clean it up, while refraining from inserting meaningless statements such as "Sales Cloud" as the titles of the sections. I've renamed the sections to follow a single standard, which is the domain name. Thus Salesforce.com, Work.com and so on. Please stick to this system since it improves understanding of a very confusing product line. Please improve the sections requiring expansion (messages added into article itself). Any other changes may be suggested and/or implemented. -- Wonderfl ^(reply) 17:21, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

How else would one pronounce "salesforce 1"?108.225.17.141 (talk) 23:51, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Salesforce.com. 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/20140110090251/http://work.com/blog/2011/09/introducing-bohdan-zabawskyj-rypples-new-vp-engineering/ to http://work.com/blog/2011/09/introducing-bohdan-zabawskyj-rypples-new-vp-engineering/
• Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/610yADEeP?url=http://www.readwriteweb.com/enterprise/2010/12/beyond-babel.php to http://www.readwriteweb.com/enterprise/2010/12/beyond-babel.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130710033813/http://www.insideindianabusiness.com/newsitem.asp?ID=59728 to http://www.insideindianabusiness.com/newsitem.asp?ID=59728

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 23:42, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Hey, I'm not a regular editor, but I noticed that the Salesforce Lightning section links to a partner blog. Shouldn't it lead to the official Salesfoce site for it instead? https://www.salesforce.com/eu/campaign/lightning/

Markus.lautenbach (talk) 16:00, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

So called "case study". This ref, "Purkayastha, Debapratim and Chakraborty, Barnali (2020). "Corporate Culture and HR Practices at Salesforce.com, Inc.|Human Resource and Organization Behavior|Case Study|Case Studies". icmrindia.org. Retrieved June 14, 2020." Is total puff, to say the least. Reading the abstract of it (the rest is conveniently behind a paywall) is enough to tell that this is not something to base the corporate culture section on. I'll include the abstract below.

Founded in 1999, Salesforce began its journey as a company specializing in software as a service (SaaS). In 2020, it became a global leader in customer relationship management, or CRM, software. According to analysts, a strong corporate culture and HR practices were a huge driving force behind its continuous business success. The case discusses in detail Salesforce’s culture based on the concept of Ohana, a deep-rooted support system nurtured inside the company. In addition, the company’s culture emphasized certain core values, behaviors, and experiences. The case then sets out to describe how the company managed to make Salesforce a great place to work and maintained this position as it continued to grow. The case also explores the company’s HR practices. Salesforce’s focus on employee wellbeing is also explained in detail. The leaders at Salesforce believed that its culture fostered dialogue, collaboration, recognition, and a sense of family, and helped its employees drive the company’s purpose, vision, and impact. The case ends with a discussion on whether Salesforce’s unique culture could be preserved as it continued to grow.

Who are these mysterious "analysts"? Lots of ambiguous language. Written like a scientific study, but it's a load of puff.

Goodbye to this ref, and anything it backs up, because the stuff it does, is basically paraphrased from it. The Alternate Mako (talk) 13:18, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Removed the puff reference and the puff it propped up. Also found an issue with the only other ref in the "positive" lead of this section. Not looking good here. The Alternate Mako (talk) 13:33, 24 October 2021 (UTC)