Talk:BambooHR

Recreation

I have recreated the article as permitted here by the closing admin of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BambooHR. Cunard (talk) 01:07, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedily deleted because... (Company does have claims to notability) --68.82.159.107 (talk) 15:52, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Heavy Bias and Misrepresentation of Quoted Material

I’m bringing attention to the second section on this page:

“BambooHR's services include an applicant tracking system and an employee benefits tracker. Juan Martinez and Rob Marvin wrote in PC Magazine in 2017 that although the website is "easy to get up and running", it is more expensive than a large number of its competitors and its website is "pretty but lacks functionality".[1]”

There are two quotes listed in this section from PC Magazine. https://www.pcmag.com/review/338544/bamboohr

Both quotes are misrepresented. It appears that previous edits and attempts have been made to resolve the bias and misrepresentation in order to improve the page, but have been reverted.

1. The first quote used in this paragraph says that the website is “easy to get up and running”. In the referenced article they are not referring to the website. They are referencing that the software is easy to get up and running.
3. The second quote, "pretty but lacks functionality," is not on the sourced page at all.

This paragraph should serve as an overview and introduction to BambooHR and reference PC Magazine overview. Rather than providing a balanced overview it seems as if the content is heavily skewed to their competitors favor, Zenefits, which is also linked to on the page itself. There is positive commentation about Zenefits on the BambooHR page, which doesn’t seem relevant to the page: “..functionalities are inferior to Zenefits'.”

There is a focus on the “cons” and negative comments from PC Magazine. The quote from the “pros” section is twisted to not represent the actual PC Magazine statement. Then there is a disregard for quoting the main opinion from the articles “bottom line” section:

“While it is pricier than the competition and could use better BA features, BambooHR's solid feature set and user-friendly interface push it to the top of our list, earning it our Editors' Choice for general HR software.”

I propose replacing the quotes with just a quote from the overview statement in the “bottom line” section from PC Magazine:

BambooHR's services include an applicant tracking system and an employee benefits tracker. Juan Martinez and Rob Marvin wrote in PC Magazine in 2017 that "BambooHR may be priced higher than other products in its category, but by delivering robust features and an intuitive user interface it more than compensates for that issue and earns our Editors' Choice honor.".[1]

205.197.216.74 (talk) 18:22, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

I made some changes to the article here. I changed the first quote to refer the software rather than the website. Regarding the second quote, "pretty but lacks functionality" is in a 2017 review of the BambooHR software by Juan Martinez and Rob Marvin at https://web.archive.org/web/20171230121042/https://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2492900,00.asp. I have moved the quote to the body of the article and replaced it with a quotes from the 2019 PC Magazine review by Gadjo C Sevilla and Brian T. Horowitz at https://web.archive.org/web/20190811043524/https://www.pcmag.com/review/338544/bamboohr:

In 2019, Gadjo C Sevilla and Brian T. Horowitz wrote in PC Magazine that BambooHR is "pricier than competing products" and "lacking in benefits administration (BA) features compared to rival solutions" but its "solid feature set and user-friendly interface push it to the top of our list"

Regarding Zenefits, a key theme of the 2017 and 2019 reviews from PC Magazine is that BambooHR's benefits administration functionalities are inferior to its competitor Zenefits, which is why I included it in the article.

Cunard (talk) 04:51, 11 August 2019 (UTC)