Talk:Unicru

Acquisition of Guru.com

Since "Guru.com" was never absorbed into Unicru, alas exists as an wholey independent firm today in Pennsylvania. It is confusing and misleading to note it in a description of Unicru, wouldn't it be better to state what they make or produce in 2006 rather then what they didn't become in 2003--namely Guru?Hholt01 11:55, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi there. Actually that's incorrect. Guru.com was acquired by Unicru in 2003. All Guru.com employees and technology became part of Unicru and several Guru.com employees still work at Unicru. In 2004 Unicru sold the rights to the Guru.com URL and logo to eMoonlighter.com. eMoonlighter then rebranded itself as Guru.com. Since most of the assets of Guru.com remain part of Unicru, it seems reasonable to list it like this. Gwernol 13:17, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Edits

Who the hell keeps reverting the page back to the one with less information damnit? Is it unicru? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaydinia (talk • contribs)

That would be me. The edits that have been made to the page are unencyclopedic ("It is common sense that most people will lie on a test about their personality in order to get hired. Therefore unicru's questions cannot possibly be the reason for improvement in turnover rates, etc." - this would need a reference, otherwise it's just your opinion). It is possible to include criticisms in an article without making it sound like a conspiracy. A lot of the links provided are to blogs and forums, which are not advisable (see Wikipedia:External links). The other links don't necessarily have anything to do with Unicru but to personality tests in general.

You also shouldn't sign your edits (however, you should sign your comments on the talk page with ~~~~). ... discospinster 01:09, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Speaking of unencyclopedic. This sentence "Many of their customers are large retailers like Lowes, Hollywood Video, Albertsons, Circuit City and Best Buy." requires a citation. --Crossmr 02:35, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Fair point. I'll find and add them. Gwernol 02:56, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

also "solutions" is a marketing buzzword, not a term for use in encyclopedias. In reality the company provides products.--Crossmr 03:01, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

(de-indenting a bit) there I have to disagree with you. A (software) product is a program you buy and use. A solution is a product plus services - for example customization, maintenance, installation etc. Its not just a buzzword, it makes a useful distrinction that is used by more than just marketing folks. Gwernol 03:28, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

popular usage not withstanding, its slang until it shows up here: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=solutions . Unless Unicru was marketing a system called "Solutions" or had trademarked the usage I see no reason to use it here. Its products and services. Solutions is a marketing creation. --Crossmr 03:36, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm happy with "products and services", I'll update. I've added references for the listed customers. Gwernol 03:41, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Although it is worth noting that Unicru's two producs are called the Unicru Salaried Solution and the unicru Hourly Solution. Gwernol 05:31, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

"a number of other software companies". Information needs to be factual and specific. 0 is a number, so is 1 million. Have they acquired 5 other companies? 10? --Crossmr 04:20, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Updated the article to cover this Gwernol 05:31, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Reference number 5 does not link to the correct article! Jason Brown 05:03, 25 May 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Angryredplanet (talk • contribs)

I recall the Unicru Wikipedia page used to have criticisms of the program listed. Apparently, those have indeed disappeared. Let me take a wild guess as to who is responsible for that... this reminds me of the Church of Scientology editing its page constantly and trying to edit out the controversies and criticisms and then ultimately being banned by Wikipedia for doing so. Keep it up, Unicru. I am still laughing that an employee's "validity" is somehow determined by an electronic test and not by an actual capable human. Have you ever noticed that the companies that use Unicru to test have a massive employee turnaround? Every time I go into one of those corporate chains, I see different people every visit. Must be working great. Everyone knows that standardized testing doesn't work - in the school system, in the workplace, or anyone else. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.56.250.149 (talk) 18:15, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Stock

Unicru is supposedly a publicly traded company. Yet I've performed several searches for their stock, and not one search engine returns any information for this company. Is it traded under another name? --Crossmr 03:58, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

its privately held, so you won't find it. Gwernol 04:03, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Grading system

I was just wondering if any one can get any info on their grading system for employees?141.157.225.226 04:00, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

There are several scientific papers published on the Unicru systems. I can find you references to those if it would be helpful. The Unicru Whitepapers (available here) are pretty good overviews of thier system too. Gwernol 04:11, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Beating the System

I agree that the form is an awful system and should not be utilized at all. I like that the answers to the questions have been given here. I have several concerns, though. First, is this just someone's best guess as to what the right answers are, or did they get them from the inside, or has this series been personally tested and proved by someone getting a job? While it looks good, can it really be trusted to 100% accuracy? Second, I'd also like some info on how the grading works. The link to the white pages above didn't work for me. I imagine that it's all automatically summed up and some grade is posted to the employer, such as a percentile. That's only a guess. Third, while I like the 'beat the system' how-to, it doesn't belong here, at least not in that format. I'd say either use a citation that proves the answers are 100% accurate or just make a link to a web page containing that information. A little clean-up here would be good.

Empbac 01:52, 16 February 2007 (UTC)empbac

On the topic of how grading is done...From my talks with numerous hiring managers and one Unicru customer service representative in January, it has become apparent that often the employer doesn't get much of a choice if the Unicru system has deemed an applicant unworthy for hire. An application is not always scored by percentage, as I have found that many of mine have outright failed. When an applicant fails the personality test, Unicru doesn't alway send the full application to the employer. The employer just gets a message notifying them that there was an applicant whose application was not sent because they did not qualify. If an applicant isn't aware of this when submitting applications to every local business in a short period of time, a considerable number of employers are eliminated for the 90 day waiting period. I'd be interested in finding out how to officially document information like this, as I feel there is important information missing from the main article that can't be cited, yet remains valid and somewhat important to anyone researching Unicru. It would also be equally important to utilize shorter sentences.

Legumious 12:52, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

where did the asnwers go? if this test is so bogus then why were the answers taken down? having them up seemed like the only way to get around the pointless personality test. 67.160.183.24 22:35, 8 July 2007 (UTC)v0lc0mkiller

I'm wondering where the answers went as well, did the Unicru company have something to do with this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.229.6.137 (talk) 16:08, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Possible Discrimination?

I have gone through the Unicru application process and it seemeed to me that some of the questions could preclude individuals with certain disabilities, like social anxiety. Discrimination of this kind is against U.S. federal law. I did a little probing and found this article from newsreview.com where two "experts" agree that the testing discriminates not only against people with certain disabilities, but also has a bias against certain demographics.

Worth mentioning in the entry?

DeeKenn 02:17, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I have checked into Unicru's screening methods and have found they use your credit score to determine wether or not you're a qualified candidate for employment. Their reasoning behind this is that they feel people with bad credit steal from employers. So much for equal opportunity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.98.157.106 (talk) 18:50, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Are you serious? Doesn't that mean minors or college students with little credit basically can't get a job because they don't have any credit? Carsinmotion (talk) 09:54, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

It's not even a question that the test discriminates. Just look at the questions. Apparently anyone who is shy is even targeted, not to mention people who have social anxieties or any sort of mood disorder. What, they aren't worthy of employment like everyone else? That is discrimination, and it is against the law. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.56.250.149 (talk) 18:17, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Merge Unicru into Kronos Incorporated?

Given that the former company has been acquired by the latter and no longer even has its own web presence, there should probably be a merge in the articles. Any objections? 3-sphere (talk) 03:10, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

That makes sense to me. —Noah 05:06, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Unicru. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071006041218/http://www.benchmark.com/news/sv/2004/02_18_2004.php to http://www.benchmark.com/news/sv/2004/02_18_2004.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:01, 22 February 2016 (UTC)