Talk:Agoda

Agoda will not let you change your email,or close or delete account
Agoda is abusing customers by locking them out of their own personal information. It is impossible to change your email on Agoda unless you possibly know staff there personally. Their suggestions for changing the email are not written by Agoda but rather a crappy comment by someone. And still you cannot change your email if you follow those instructions. If you wish to delete or close your account, you can't. This shoddy service is not worth using. You will get no service assistance from these stupid or intentionally corrupt people running Agoda. 2405:9800:BC30:7644:BCE4:62FF:ED28:AEE6 (talk) 00:30, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

This article appears Neutral, does not use any advertising language, and links to other relevant Wikipedia articles and resources. Would appreciate comments or suggestions from experienced editors on how to make this article (or a re-write) acceptable under the Wikipedia guidelines.
 * The article does not assert notability. This is, after all, an encyclopedia, and I can't see anything significant about this company as to be included in Wikipedia.
 * Cheers mate!
 * &Lambda;ua&int; Wi se (Operibus anteire) 09:57, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm unsure why a company which is merely a subsidiary of another company (Priceline.com), which has its own entry, is even needed? Agoda is not a stand-alone company, and there seems nothing notable about it warranting an entry in Wikipedia. Kirkaiya (talk) 08:31, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Previous AfD
Previous AfD was at Articles for deletion/Agoda. This article seems to be more adequately sourced and seems to have some notability claims. I'm content to leave it, but would understand if someone nominated it for AfD again. I think speedy would be inappropriate - the article's considerably stronger than the one deleted following the AfD. --Dweller (talk) 11:06, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Bc chua (talk) 06:45, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Contradiction in the article
These are some point which I wish to highlight to the editors

1) Is Singapore the HQ? in the article, it is HQ in Singapore, yet in the "History" tab, it become "based in Singapore and headquartered in Bangkok" Ref 3 did not mention any thing about Bangkok.

2) is the company own website consider a verifiable reference? Ref 4 is from its own website. Why is it necessary to boast about its own number of employee? Does other wiki pages does the same?

3) ref 16. It is inconclusive to state agoda is the "fourth most successful hotel channel" when it has different ranks over the various region? Does it create a impression that it is 4th in the world? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bc chua (talk • contribs) 07:55, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I've seen employee numbers mentioned in infoboxes before, but I don't remember which. As far as the other thing, it says that the website "SiteMinder" called it the fourth best, so it's not claiming that it's overall the fourth most successful channel. As far as the Singapore/Bangkok, sorry about that, I think I got confused. I may have gotten my wires crossed on that detail! - Stilistic (talk) 22:03, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

it is 4th in United States and Canada, 5th for UK, 2nd for asia and different ranking for other regions. It is unfair to simply said it is 4th, SiteMinder did not state that. As for the no of employees, it is a dynamic figure which is bound to change over time, which is a need to post it on wiki? It does not fall under the categories of past events (certain number of attendees, viewers) or a committee composing a fixed number of members.Bc chua (talk) 06:45, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

1) Site minder did not refer agoda as the 4th "most successfully". The exact word from article is "total booking revenue to hotels". is booking revenue the only measure of success? 2) Why specifically only stated the ranking for US and Canada when it has different ranking in so many regions? I do not see SiteMinder as a reference in other hotel booking wiki such as booking.com, hotels.com etc Bc chua (talk) 05:08, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Ref 20 and 21
Ref 20 - the survey (consists of 250 people) is specifically for Booking Holdings brands (total of ). For mentions, 27.5(11%) and engagement is 55(22%). It failed to mention the limited scope in which the survey was conducted.

ref 21- the ref certainly did not mention it was good for a "lower-budget trip". The ref wrote "And if you are only getting a flight, Orbitz is the winner. Agoda ends up with the short straw when it comes to rewards, but if you are looking for a simple hut on the beach in Thailand (and who isn't), it usually has so much more to offer a budget-minded traveler." Simply put, Agoda is the worst in term of rewards and this is conveniently left. Bc chua (talk) 23:26, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for catching that, and my apologies for misreading. I really appreciate your help dealing with the issues. - Stilistic (talk) 03:36, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

both data are dynamic so why continue to show it?
Both the number of employees and Alexa rank is dynamic and kept on changing so why is there a need to be written? Is the company employing the most number of people??? why is it worth to mention? PR stunt? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bc chua (talk • contribs) 07:04, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Extend my stay
how do I extend my stay 174.213.161.122 (talk) 10:45, 8 April 2024 (UTC)