Talk:Fast Search & Transfer

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Companies  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Companies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of companies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Norway  
WikiProject icon This article is part of WikiProject Norway, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to Norway. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 

[edit]

Should the page title and company name reflect the new official name, "FAST, a Microsoft® subsidiary"? There is also a new logo on fastsearch.com which should replace the old. Janhoy (talk) 22:42, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Share price crash[edit]

Would the vandal or PR person removing information from these pages please stop. It is a matter of record that FAST had a share price crash of 28% when they made a statement that they had needed to change their accounting approaches. The press release is on the company site. This is a material piece of information about the company. Added by User:86.137.204.98 21:13, 2 August 2007

Reversion War[edit]

This page is currently subject to a prolonged edit war. Specifically, the following paragraph is added, deleted, added, and deleted again:

On July 30th 2007 FAST announced a collapse in revenue of 40% due to changes in financial controls on revenue recognition. It had been forecasting $55M of Q2 revenue and profitability, in a statement on the company's website it revealed revenue would collapse to $35M and the company would become unprofitable. According to the company it had been recognizing revenue without signed contracts using Memoranda of Understanding MOUs. The shares fell 28% to hit a three year low. This and other issues around lack of customer payment were raised by Goldman Sachs in a report June 2007 by Mowalla and FAST is now the subject of an onging investigation by the Norwegian financial regulator as revealed in Finansavisen (Norway's equivalent of the FT) on the 6th of August 2007.

Could the relevant parties please familiarise themselves with Wikipedia's consensus policy as well as the dispute resolution process. If the edit war continues, protection of the page may have to be requested until consensus is achieved. Ablehr 19:45, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Since there's been no comments or page edits after last edit, related to edit war paragraph and last edit took place 5 days ago I propose to remove neutrality dispute mark. Peter Vasilyev 07:48, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Agree (not that I ever have claimed its neither neutral nor unneutral) Arsenikk 16:58, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Agree also. (I'm the one who added the original ReversionWar tag that was since decomissioned, thus the current POV tag.) Ablehr 13:50, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

the facts above are supported by http://www.fast.no/news.aspx?m=329&amid=10146 which gives a statement from fast http://www.oslobors.no/ob/aksje_interaktiv_graf?languageID=1&p_instrid=ticker.ose.FAST&p_period=1D&menu2show=1.1.2.6 showing the shareprice effect. I assume the revert vandal may work for the company's PR department as thse facts are public knowledge. Added by User:86.141.169.167 20:09, 7 August 2007

Removed ReversionWar tag as parties seem to have cooled down. Ablehr 12:53, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Parties have not cooled down and seem uninterested in achieving consensus through discussion here. ReversionWar no longer available, adding POV tag. Ablehr 06:01, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
One of the warring parties, who seem to have been doing a lot of blanking, is the subject company itself. Specifically 62.113.137.5 [1] and 65.217.203.5 [2]. I thought that was interesting in light of recent revelations [3] about similar behaviour. RoboDove 00:40, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Now I'm just trying to make article sound more neutral because to my mind now style of article in too negative. This is just question of wording and not facts (I've changed no facts in prev edits). Edits from ip 62.113.137.5 are mine ones. Peter Vasilyev 07:39, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Rolling back edits by 86.129.186.158 since they are just returning page to old controversial state and there are a lot of new information added by Arsenikk. Peter Vasilyev 07:16, 22 August 2007 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Peter Vasilyev (talkcontribs).

You cannot have events from this month or week under a history heading, these are current and indeed unfolding. I fear the company is trying to edit out what is an importent set of facts which are well cited and highly relevant —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.129.186.158 (talk) 07:35, August 22, 2007 (UTC)

My thought is that history section is about all things that happen with company, regardless of time, they took place. Other section should be about products, clients etc. And putting information about recent events in history section is not an attempt to somehow hide events, but it's about structuring information in articles.
Look, how developed company articles are organized: Dell, IBM. Apple_Inc.. All of them have History section that contains information about past and current events.
That's why I think that putting recent info in History section is correct and that's why I'm reverting your change now.
With best regards, Peter. —Comment was added by Peter Vasilyev (talkcontribs).
I totaly agree with Peter, using a history header is just the way things are written on Wikipedia. Remember, what happened yesterday is also history. Also, even if you do disagree with part of my edit, please refrain from undoing the entire edit. And for crying out loud, I do not work for FAST, never have; I don't even know anyone who does. Please be civil enough to not accuse everyone making a copyedit on Wikipedia of working at the public relations section of a company. Arsenikk 08:30, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
I have now refenced the inline links per guidelines for Wikipedia. There is no change of content, just esthetics and ease of refence. Arsenikk 09:17, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

86.147.116.112 is insisting on not being neutral, adding their point of view, adding back the unverifiable blog and not keeping respecting the format.Ronpop —Preceding comment was added at 15:36, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Is there anything outstanding from this issue? - RoyBoy 01:35, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Reversion war continues[edit]

The reversion war continues, added POV tag. I removed the following from the article as discussions and dispute resolution should take place here and not on the article itself:

NOTE: This page is being edited by 65.217.203.5 (please see history) which is an IP address registered to the company, despite denial by the poster in history of working for Fast.

I would like to make clear that there is no Wikipedia policy in place that dictates that employees of a company cannot contribute to that company's Wikipedia entry. Rather, regardless of who they work for, every contributor must comply with Wikipedia's consensus and neutral point of view policies. Could the relevant parties therefore please familiarise themselves with Wikipedia's consensus policy as well as the dispute resolution process. Ablehr 08:41, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

"one of the less significant players"?[edit]

Is there a source for this statement? All analysts reports that I am aware of place FAST at the top end of enterprise search vendor rankings. And the recent Microsoft purchase at $1.2 Billion seems to make this statement nonsensical. Ray3055 (talk) 19:09, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

This whole editing war brings a lot of insight about the competition in the search market. Like most Norwegians I have very strong feelings for FAST as a Norwegian company and it is clear for anyone watching that their main competitor Autonomy Corporation like to mention the growth pain and problems in FAST during the last years. For anyone with insight in the search market it seems obvious that this is because they are loosing momentum and customer to FAST. After Microsoft Corporation announced it's offer we have seen no badmouthing from Autonomy - probably because they finally realize that FAST within Microsoft will become the strongest and dominant player within the Enterprise Search Market. As a closing remark try searching for "happy customer" at Autonomy's website ;-)

Given the recent criminal charges filed, along with the wide disparity between stated and re-stated earnings, it's hard to believe that anyone could stand behind this kind of pro-Fast message. It doesn't seem to matter whether it's in reference to Autonomy, or any of the other vendors in the search space, Fast is clearly in a tight spot. 75.31.246.47 (talk) 20:47, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

"Is" or "was"?[edit]

Shouldn't the article say that FAST "was" a company now that it is a part of Microsoft's SharePoint division? Disclaimer: I previously worked in FAST. --Bjornte (talk) 12:55, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

"major ongoing investigation"[edit]

The investigation ended long ago. Time for an update? --Bjornte (talk) 12:56, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

This entry is completely out of date[edit]

This product is now called "FAST Search Server 2010 for SharePoint"[1][2] and is owned by Microsoft[3]. FAST Search Server 2010 for SharePoint is the most full-featured of all the search products offered by Microsoft for SharePoint and connected systems.[4] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jkevinparker (talkcontribs) 03:10, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

I've redirected that name to this article. - RoyBoy 01:34, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

NPOV removed[edit]

The article has been substantially changed since 2007, I've removed the NPOV template, please use {{POV-section}} or better yet {{POV-statement}} for sentences, then detail issues here. This will help address them in a timely manner. - RoyBoy 01:34, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page[edit]

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessaryily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request it's removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

  • http://www.cbronline.com/article_news.asp?guid=7905EF56-BD97-46BE-B961-3DC00843A85A
    Triggered by \bcbronline\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 17:04, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Resolved This issue has been resolved, and I have therefore removed the tag, if not already done. No further action is necessary.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 00:13, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

  1. ^ http://sharepoint.microsoft.com/en-us/product/capabilities/search/Pages/Fast-Search.aspx
  2. ^ http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ee781286.aspx
  3. ^ http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/enterprisesearch/ee441234
  4. ^ http://www.cmswire.com/cms/enterprise-cms/how-search-has-improved-in-sharepoint-2010-007161.php