Talk:Cvent

Discussion
Categorization as an Event Management company seems wrong. They make software. Others in the category of Event Management seem to be focused more on the onsite aspects of event management. Might deserve its own category, but for now, seems inaccurate. (Rfkrishnan (talk) 18:11, 9 October 2013 (UTC))

Well–researched section on criticism was deleted by an anonymous user in Virgina without any indication or reason. 217.170.204.140 (talk) 06:31, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

As suggested by 75.75.105.240, propaganda sources have been removed. The Virginia court holds all the information on lawsuits as a neutral intermediary, there should be little dispute. Regarding the employment conditions, while Glassdoor is externally anonymous, they hold the user information. In addition, the amount of reviews stating similar issues justify the statement. 81.106.151.39 (talk) 09:17, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

The existence of a lawsuit as asserted by 81.106.151.39 does not establish criticism, many companies enforce their legal rights in courts across the country. The link to the Court is very confusing as it takes you to a captcha, when filled out drops you in a generic search engine and as it stands is not a direct citation. This should be fixed or removed.

In reference to 81.106.151.39's comments about Glassdoor, for a company over 1,000 people to have a handful of comments hardly classifies as statistically relevant or justifying the statement, especially when those comments are both anonymous and unverified. I spent some time on Glassdoor and saw a greater number of positive reviews with a handful of outliers that were perhaps disgruntled employees, I am not sure that classifies as criticism versus individual opinions. My greatest concern about referencing Glassdoor is that while Glassdoor may have some identity information this is hardly trustable as a reliable source and not just a smear campaign against the company from a small minority. Anderson8267 (talk) 14:06, 30 May 2013 (UTC)