Talk:STATISTICA

message: This is NOT the place to give a full sales spruke on Statistica.  There is a link to Statsoft's website (do you work for them perhaps?) where people can get that kind of detail.
Perhaps you might want to add a concise list of the features Statistica has that differentiate it from SPSS, SAS and S and R.  That would be useful as long as it wasn't a sales brochure.  As an example of what is NOT appropriate, your section on the use of Statistica in various industries - SPSS and SAS are used in all the industries you list, and given that Staistica doesn't run on mainframes, you'll find that banking and finance (for example ) at the big end of town would regard Statistica as a toy.
Don't get me wrong, Statistica is an awesome piece of software for performing stats on a PC, and is a pleasure to use (much nicer to use than SPSS).  But WP is not the place for sales brochures.  Johnpf 23:24, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: EntropyAS

message: This person is an employee of Statsoft Inc:
$ whois 63.172.193.43
Sprint SPRN-BLKS (NET-63-160-0-0-1) 
                                  63.160.0.0 - 63.175.255.255
STATSOFT, INC. SPRINTLINK (NET-63-172-193-32-1) 
                                  63.172.193.32 - 63.172.193.47
Perhaps StatSoft would be happier for this page to be deleted?  Or should we just get a block from their netblock?
Please Mr StatSoft/EntropyAS, if you are going to write an article on STATISTICA then make it an article, not a sales brochure.  Mind you, if STATISTICA is as good as YOU claim it is, with the market penetration you claim, then why do you have to put a sales brochure on WP anyway?  Johnpf 22:30, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 63.172.193.43

message: This article has been flagged at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard. Rees11 (talk) 18:29, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  COIN 

message: I saw this on the editor request page and thought it was something
with which I may be familiar and able to comment.
I have had a few related issues come up while writing a piece for Dendreon
and another draft idea that involves me personally. Drug companies are interesting because
it is hard for the FDA to find informed parties who have no financial or
personal interest in a drug candidate so disclosure is used where NPOV is
difficult and multi-POV cases are presented for many people to examine. 
In general, it is hard to find people who have an incentive to write responsible
critical commentary on any business or product, even competitors either don't
benefit or can't be objective or write with an absence of malice. 
I thought this article was a bit bland and superficial but only contained
passing puffery and obvious promotional language. I'm still left
wondering is there something this does or did to make it unique?
Is the API patented or did someone use this to find a telegram from ET
in a background of cosmic noise? Why would this be more interesting to wiki readers 
than an article on how my sister's kids did at a school play ( an example of
something of generally personal interest competing with that of others' for time and
attention) ? 
Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 13:34, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  my thoughts as  a reader 

message: The article pervasively reads like advertising, containing many non-notable facts, biased words, original research and improper handling of Trademarks. The article does contain non-biased facts and can be redeemed. I'd like to clear state that this is a discussion so please give feedback.
Suggested changes or points of contention:
1. Only the first letter of Statistica should be capitalized and italics maybe used. See WP:MOSTM
2. "STATISTICA has an interactive graphical user interface with customizable menus and toolbars." This is not note worthy a graphical user interface is common among statistical software. (GUI could be combined with other sentence if needed).
3. 
There are three basic channels to which you can direct all analysis results spreadsheets and graphs: workbooks, reports, and standalone windows. Workbooks and reports are Active X document containers, which means they can hold all native STATISTICA documents as well as other types of Active X documents, including Microsoft Excel spreadsheets and Microsoft Word documents. Workbooks contain two panels: a navigation tree on the left and a document viewer on the right that allows the user to view the document that is selected on the left. Reports display a series of spreadsheets, graphs, or other objects sequentially in a word processor style document. Workbooks have a file extension of .stw and reports have a file extension of .str. Data files are typically displayed in spreadsheets. The basic form of the spreadsheet is a two-dimensional table arranged as cases (rows) and variables (columns). STATISTICA spreadsheets have a file extension of .sta.
This block is unnecessarily verbose and contains information that belongs in a Statistica manual and not an encyclopedia article. The design of the document viewer window and name of file extensions are not notable.
Suggested re-write:
Analysis results may be channeled to workbooks, reports, or standalone result windows. Workbooks and reports can be Active X documents including Microsoft Excel and Word documents.
4. 
"STATISTICA contains several main groups of analytic techniques, which can be accessed from the Statistica menu bar. The software provides options for common basic statistics, multivariate techniques, and advanced linear/nonlinear models. Quality control techniques include quality control charts and process analysis. The Design of Experiments module provides an interface for setting up and analyzing experiment data sets. Other main types of analyses include neural networks and data mining."
The menubar reference is extraneous, and the utility/functionality section could be more concise. I'd recommend using bullet points with possible linking to the techniques Wikipedia entry.
5.
The software also provides three options for creating macros automatically. Analysis Macros record the settings and output options chosen for a particular analysis. A Master Macro can record a series of analyses. A Keyboard Macro records the actual series of keystrokes that a user enters via the keyboard.
This is unnecessarily verbose and is note worthy? This kind of seems like reaching and by expanding verbosely on details like this it in someway diminishes the product. I'd recommend including "macro framework", or creation of macros in the fucntionality section.
Data import section:
6. "With this mechanism STATISTICA helps to bridge the gap of being able to get your data into the software. This is useful for the end-user who logs their own data."
Referring to the reader is improper tone and "helps to bridge the gap" is marketing speak.
7. "STATISTICA provides two interfaces for textual importing; largely because the interfaces would become too cluttered if they were combined."
I'm not sure this is note worthy and contains original research. How do you know why they made this decision? WP:OR
8. "These interfaces handle fixed width text files and variable width text files. More importantly, STATISTICA's import facility is based on smart, sophisticated parsing that the end-user has good control over."
Does anyone consider this unbiased and not blatant advertising?
9. 
If the data being imported were viewed like an object, then the user would tell STATISTICA what characters, or sequence of characters to expect to cause a line of data to be defined. In the same way, the end-user would tell STATISTICA what characters, or sequence of characters to expect to cause a break in data points. The import facility also allows you to tell the system what to use as a decimal point, what to use as string delimiters, and what to use as escape sequence.
Is this noteworthy, does excel, access, numbers, open office, and etc. not function the same way?
10. Does Sarbanes-Oxley Compliance deserve it's own section? R.Vinson (talk) 15:11, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for considering the input. I'm sure the article will be beyond NPOV dispute in no time. Regarding the Statistica (STATISTICA) issue the WP:MOSTM guidelines are pretty clear. See Time for an example. R.Vinson (talk) 16:22, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV dispute 

message: Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 11:44, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  References 

message: Just to be clear, here on Wikipedia "references" does not mean wikilinks to other articles, it means citations to reliable sources to support statements made in the article. They are essential to support the key inclusion criterion of notability as it applies to companies. – ukexpat (talk) 16:30, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Same as for article pages, see below. – ukexpat (talk) 19:29, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Clarification

message: * Bi-E, Cheng, and Shun-Yu, Chen. STATISTICA Manual I - Basic Statistics. Taipei, R.O.C.: HwaTai Publishing, 1999.
* Byun, Jong Seok; Choi, Young Hoon; Lee, Sueng Chun; Park, Dong Ryun; Sung, Woong Hyan. Using STATISTICA- Statistical Information Analysis. Seoul: Tomjin, 1998.
* Data Mining - jak z Vašich dat vytežit maximum. Seminár StatSoft, Praha, Bratislava: 2002.
* Kobus P., Pietrzykowski R., Zielinski W. Statystyka z pakietem STATISTICA. Fundacja "Rozwój SGGW", Warszawa: 1998.
* Luszniewicz, Andrzej. Statystyka w biznesie: Laboratoria komputerowe STATISTICA PL wersja 6. Warszawa: 2002.
* Mutoh, Mr.Shinsuke. Data Analysis Using STATISTICA. Asakura Shoten: 2000.
* Nisbet, Robert, Handbook of Statistical Analysis and Data Mining Applications. Academic Press: 2009. ISBN: 978-0-12-374765-5.
* Röhr, Michael. STATISTICA für Windows. Addison Wesley Longman Verlag GmbH: 1997.
* Skalauskas, Virgilijus, Duomenu analize su STATISTICA. Vilnius: Margi raštai, 2003.
* Tong Lee-Ing and Wang Chung-Ho. STATISTICA V5.5 and Basic Statistic Analysis, TasngHai Publisher, Taiwan, R.O.C.: 2002.
* Bradumup Bopobukob STATISTICA 2003.
Most of the books are out of print, in a foreign language or can not be found reference too. Having out of print books on a software package is disingenuous unless they are providing historical context. They also are not referneced correctly (which I would fix if they were demonstrated to be valuable). R.Vinson (talk) 20:56, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The only English book I could find reference too doesn't have a chapter on Statistica, but does include a trial version of the software. []R.Vinson (talk) 21:10, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

text: No problem.  I added a book that is available on Amazon back to the article.  There seems to be different acceptable ways to reference books, but feel free to rearrange or correct as you see fit.  EntropyAS (talk) 02:40, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

text: I've changed the reference to use the appropriate citebook template. R.Vinson (talk) 03:46, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Further reading section 

message: Should we remove the   and  tags and add  for now? R.Vinson (talk) 16:32, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: done R.Vinson (talk) 23:21, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of <nowiki>{{notability}} {{refimprove}} and {{POV-check}}</nowiki> tags? 

message: Not putting this on the page itself, cause I don't have a citation handy, but I do remember reading a review of "econometric"/stats s/w in Econometrica (or was it J.of Appl.Econometrics?) that lambasted Statistica for giving blatantly incorrect solutions to various regression problems. Mind you, each numerical stats algo is not exact... 212.188.108.142 (talk) 08:43, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Numerical stability/correctness 

message: The page has less info than there is for other software products. Possibly some of the comments have been a bit hard on Statistica: the bar is being set higher than for say SPSS. So I want to make a plea for more objectivity, and I say this as an occasionaly user of Statistica, and I'm not a StatsSoft employee either. Inevitably some of the material on the page is going to be sourced from the Statistica website itself. Is this any different to how the other software is being treated? I think we have to treat Statistica the same way other products have been treated, and I'm not sure that is currently the case. What do other Editors feel are reasonable expectations for the content of the page? Lookign at the SPSS page, the obvious ones are: 
* lists of features
* description of user interface
* additional modules
* data format
* versions
So if no-one objects, I propose that those headings be added to the page for starters. 
Mango bush (talk) 23:11, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: What is reasonable content to expect here?

message: I am a novice wikipedia editor.  MrOllie and other experienced wikipedia editors have helped me understand COI conventions (thanks!).  I see that I should not have added material to the Statistica page that cited research that I am one of the authors of.  It has been suggested to me that if I think material with COI is important to add, a good strategy is to propose it in the talk page, and let other editors evaluate and decide if it is appropriate to add to the Article page or not.  I propose that it would enhance the Statsitica page to add information about the software's adoption/popularity, and whether or not customers are satisfied with the product.  So, I will put some material here that I think would be good to add to the page.  Then I will stand back and let other more experienced editors decide if the material should be added, how to modify this text, and where on the page would be the best place to put this material.  Here is the sentence I propose adding (with citations):
:PollsGregory Piatetsky-Shapiro (2012), [http://www.kdnuggets.com/2012/05/top-analytics-data-mining-big-data-software.html Top Analytics,
Data Mining, Big Data software used], KDnuggets, 2012. and surveysKarl Rexer, Heather Allen, & Paul Gearan (2010) 2010 Data Miner Survey Results: Highlights, presented at Predictive Analytics World, Washington DC, Oct. 2010.Karl Rexer, Heather Allen, & Paul Gearan (2011) 2011 Data Miner Survey Results: Highlights, presented at Predictive Analytics World, New York City, Oct. 2011. show that Statistica has very strong adoption among data miners and high user satisfaction.Karl Rexer, Heather Allen, & Paul Gearan (2010) 2010 Data Miner Survey Results: Highlights, presented at Predictive Analytics World, Washington DC, Oct. 2010.Karl Rexer, Heather Allen, & Paul Gearan (2011) 2011 Data Miner Survey Results: Highlights, presented at Predictive Analytics World, New York City, Oct. 2011.
Karl (talk) 16:32, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Potentially add info about popularity and customer satisfaction

message: I noticed that there is conflicting info on this page about whether version 10 or 11 is the most recent version of this product.  However, I could not find citations about which info is correct.  Karl (talk) 17:19, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: conflicting info on page about most recent version number