Talk:Bees algorithm

message: Is this the same as Artificial Bee Colony Algorithm? Andreas Kaufmann (talk) 21:57, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: This article, and many other similar ones, is missing any kind of discussion of how it compares against more well-known optimisation techniques like GAs. Under what conditions does this perform better and worse, and in what ways? Do problems need to meet certain criteria? If you can give a detailed description of an algorithm then why make no discussion of why it even exists or what its strengths are relative to similar algorithms? Destynova (talk) 13:11, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: How does this compare with other population-based optimisation algorithms?

message: :Image:Good Resolution The Bees Algorithm Poster.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 22:34, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Good Resolution The Bees Algorithm Poster.jpg

message: User  according to his profile "a Ph.D. student in computer science" has made several changes to pages related to the Swarm Intelligence area. He removed numerous references and links from the Bees Algorithm page, substituting them with other less pertinent references, and copied and pasted the following statement: "Nature-inspired metaheuristics in general have started to attract criticism in the research community for hiding their lack of novelty behind an elaborate metaphor.[5][6][7][8][9] In response, Springer's Journal of Heuristics has updated their editorial policy to state that:[10] Implementations should be explained by employing standard optimization terminology, where a solution is called a "solution" and not something else related to some obscure metaphor (e.g., harmony, flies, bats, countries, etc.)." The same statement was copied and pasted (always poorly formatted) on the pages regarding the Artificial bee colony algorithm  and Harmony search, and probably many more. He has also deleted a long list of algorithms, links, and other material from the Swarm Intelligence page, and semi-protected the page to stop changes. There is no way to undo the changes, as he promptly rolls back his version. From my point of view, his changes are scientifically incorrect. The statement about Nature-inspired metaheuristics is at best disrespectful, and ignorant of the impact of such techniques (over 6000 citations on the topic only this year according to WoS). His re-editing of the Swarm Intelligence page shows a very partial view of the subject, and discarded a lot of fundamental work in the area. I tried to ask him to respect the contributions of other authors to no avail. I hereby ask him to roll back his changes, on this page and related ones. I have no objection about him adding an extra section with his personal view about the algorithms, but I believe he should respect the contributions of many experts in the field.Marco castellani 1965 (talk) 01:12, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  A lot of material and citations have been removed. 

message: I have removed the boilerplate criticism section that appeared in the lede of this article (and in many others), which appears in more or less the same form at List of metaphor-based metaheuristics.  Since I have made similar removals or replacements on other pages, if anyone has an issue with this one, it's best to start an omnibus discussion at Talk:List of metaphor-based metaheuristics. —Psychonaut (talk) 19:17, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism 

message: The following statement
"At the end of one search cycle, the scout population is again composed of ns scouts: nr scouts produced by the local search procedure (some of which may have been re-initialised by the site abandonment procedure), and ns-nb scouts generated by the global search procedure."
seems to be wrong at first glance. I believe that istead of "ns-nb" it should read "ns-nr". We want to show that we end up with a number of ns scouts. We have nr local scouts. So we need "ns-nr" scouts from elsewhere to end up at a total of ns. Right ? 
JB. --92.195.73.206 (talk) 18:58, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  The reference, authored by D. T. Pham, entitled “The Bees Algorithm Technical Note” is dated August 2015, per researchgate.net.  Can you explain in different words why the algorithm authorship should be ammended?  It seems that Olague and Puente developed it independently, but after it was already published.  Am I understanding it incorrectly? Thank you for the clarification. Ferkijel (talk) 18:28, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Declining request; the requester is not answering my question above. Ferkjl (talk) 09:24, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  nr vs. nb -- Error ?