Talk:Codes
From CFD-Wiki
(Difference between revisions)
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
:It looks great I think. It is very good that someone works on the code section. It is one of the most frequented sections. About the description of the codes. What I think is most important is that we never accept any advertisements in these descriptions. Everything should be verifiable and objective truths. Hence, just writing that a code is accurate and uses state-of-the-art models and numerics is not good. Describing which models and methods that are used should be okay though, as long as adjectives like "good", "accurate", "best" etc. are used very sparingly. About the copyright issue. We must of course ensure that we don't break any copyrights. However, I don't think that companies will have any problems with using their descriptions of their codes, on the opposite, that is probably what they want. Some descriptions have also been written by the code companies themselves. For example, the [[Gridgen]] description was written by John Chawner and Rick Matus, two of the top people in Pointwise. It is really not that good that companies themselves write these decriptions since that has a tendency to always produce advertising material. Pointwise have been very good at avoiding advertisements and unverifiable adjectives though. --[[User:Jola|Jola]] 03:22, 7 June 2007 (MDT) | :It looks great I think. It is very good that someone works on the code section. It is one of the most frequented sections. About the description of the codes. What I think is most important is that we never accept any advertisements in these descriptions. Everything should be verifiable and objective truths. Hence, just writing that a code is accurate and uses state-of-the-art models and numerics is not good. Describing which models and methods that are used should be okay though, as long as adjectives like "good", "accurate", "best" etc. are used very sparingly. About the copyright issue. We must of course ensure that we don't break any copyrights. However, I don't think that companies will have any problems with using their descriptions of their codes, on the opposite, that is probably what they want. Some descriptions have also been written by the code companies themselves. For example, the [[Gridgen]] description was written by John Chawner and Rick Matus, two of the top people in Pointwise. It is really not that good that companies themselves write these decriptions since that has a tendency to always produce advertising material. Pointwise have been very good at avoiding advertisements and unverifiable adjectives though. --[[User:Jola|Jola]] 03:22, 7 June 2007 (MDT) | ||
| + | |||
| + | ::I guess that I generally agree. However, the webpage copying looks to be more widespread than I initially thought. I would rather have no description pages at all than have pages that are cut-and-paste jobs. On the [[Gridgen]] page, I guess my objection is that it is rather long - and they have their own web presence for that sort of thing. It does fit your requirements, though, and maybe we should add the part about "verifiable and objective truths" to the text on the code page. --[[User:Jasond|Jasond]] 13:55, 7 June 2007 (MDT) | ||
Revision as of 19:55, 7 June 2007
I added a short note at the top of this page about limiting the length of the code descriptions - this is the result of a discussion in the wiki forum late last year - and I added a link to the copyright page to hopefully head off any more submissions of copyrighted material. I haven't started to look to hard at the individual pages yet - I'll start that later this week. Finally, I have removed all of the links to nonexistent pages in the free solvers section. I'm not sure how that looks. Any opinions? --Jasond 15:48, 6 June 2007 (MDT)
- It looks great I think. It is very good that someone works on the code section. It is one of the most frequented sections. About the description of the codes. What I think is most important is that we never accept any advertisements in these descriptions. Everything should be verifiable and objective truths. Hence, just writing that a code is accurate and uses state-of-the-art models and numerics is not good. Describing which models and methods that are used should be okay though, as long as adjectives like "good", "accurate", "best" etc. are used very sparingly. About the copyright issue. We must of course ensure that we don't break any copyrights. However, I don't think that companies will have any problems with using their descriptions of their codes, on the opposite, that is probably what they want. Some descriptions have also been written by the code companies themselves. For example, the Gridgen description was written by John Chawner and Rick Matus, two of the top people in Pointwise. It is really not that good that companies themselves write these decriptions since that has a tendency to always produce advertising material. Pointwise have been very good at avoiding advertisements and unverifiable adjectives though. --Jola 03:22, 7 June 2007 (MDT)
- I guess that I generally agree. However, the webpage copying looks to be more widespread than I initially thought. I would rather have no description pages at all than have pages that are cut-and-paste jobs. On the Gridgen page, I guess my objection is that it is rather long - and they have their own web presence for that sort of thing. It does fit your requirements, though, and maybe we should add the part about "verifiable and objective truths" to the text on the code page. --Jasond 13:55, 7 June 2007 (MDT)
