[Date Index] [Thread Index] [Author Index]

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>