Talk:Telligent Community

message: I added the software infobox as per request. --bdude - uwantit TalkCont. 04:47, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Should this software be added to the Comparison_of_wiki_software page? Wffurr 16:15, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  added infobox 

message: Was the text for this article "borrowed" from a Community Server press release?  Having been forced by necessity to use CS 2.0 for the past few months, I'd hardly call the forums "robust."  Making even the most slight modifications to an installation is an infuriating experience.  Perhaps this article should aim for a more neutral point of view?  FireWeed 20:36, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Glowingly positive 

message: The last part of the article ("Criticism") seems rather jaded, even if true. It probably should be rewritten; I'm putting an NPOV
tag on it in the meantime. I'd take care of it, but I'm not entirely familiar with the software in question. Zelse81 08:00, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What are you talking about?  The tone is matter of fact, not jaded, and a great number of software (and other topics) articles on Wikipedia have a criticism section.  Telling both sides of an issue, the positive and the negative, is commonly accepted as NEUTRAL, whereas censoring any criticism is POV-pushing. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.216.188.161 (talk) 20:01, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree with Zelse81, I don't think you can criticize someone for charging for their services. If you are going to make criticisms, make them against the product itself, not the politics of how it is sold. For example, CS has a very steep learning curve before you can start modifying it. Also it is very reliant on a very solid IT infrastructure, and many sites have found by using fly by night hosting providers. But of course you need to have actually used the software extensively before making these comments in the article it self.
David Singleton 09:02, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

text: The "Criticism" section seems to be written from the POV of someone who simply doesn't like TC, rather than someone who actually has documented cases of enterprise users having problems with a new licensing schema. I'd argue that without any citations, the section should be removed. User:Radiantmercury July 30, 2010  —Preceding undated comment added 08:16, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: POV

message: This is a little unfair.  Managed hosting of Community Server is available and at a vastly reduced price to not-for-profits and small to medium sized businesses.  This information is available on the Telligent website.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.132.19.42 (talk) 23:24, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I run a small business and was told by Telligent that it would cost $20,000 to upgrade. Do you consider that a reduced price?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.27.88.14 (talk) 08:40, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I think $20,000 is extremely expensive.  But my personal opinion doesn't matter and, no offense, neither does yours. Unless we can find multiple instances where reliable sources have been critical of Telligent's pricing structure, that section should not be included. — Satori Son 21:38, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism of small business licensing cost