Re: Re: comments on Wolfram Alpha

*To*: mathgroup at smc.vnet.net*Subject*: [mg100372] Re: [mg100342] Re: [mg100305] comments on Wolfram Alpha*From*: Brett Champion <brettc at wolfram.com>*Date*: Tue, 2 Jun 2009 06:42:56 -0400 (EDT)*References*: <200905311037.GAA17018@smc.vnet.net> <200906011110.HAA26104@smc.vnet.net>

On Jun 1, 2009, at 6:10 AM, Ingolf Dahl wrote: > Good, use Google then. Why should WolframAlpha try to be better on > things > where Google is good enough? > But with this kind of letters the number of messages to MathGroup > will soon > reach 200,000. I am also very interested in the abilities and > inabilities of > WolframAlpha, but this is not the right place for that discussion. I > suggest > a policy where letters about Wolfram Alpha from now on are let > through only > in the cases where Mathematica as such also really is involved. Other > letters fit better as direct feedback to Wolfram or as letters to the > WolframAlpha Community. What is the opinion of the Moderator here? > > [I am open to comments on this issue - what rules should > apply? -- Moderator] My *personal* opinion is that general Wolfram|Alpha comments should be directed to http://community.wolframalpha.com/ which seems to be the MathGroup equivalent. Of course comments like: * how do I get something in Mathematica to look like it does in Wolfram|Alpha? * I get different results for <foo> in Mathematica and Wolfram|Alpha. Why? * Wolfram|Alpha knows how to calculate <foo>; how do I do it in Mathematica? * How do I create a docked cell in Mathematica with a search field for Wolfram|Alpha? * etc... that also pertain to Mathematica should be allowed on MathGroup. Brett

**References**:**Re: comments on Wolfram Alpha***From:*"Ingolf Dahl" <ingolf.dahl@telia.com>