Talk:Social network analysis software

Advertising copy

Some of the entries feel like they were lifted from company websites. I think this article should adopt a more scholarly and reserved tone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.46.65.108 (talk) 14:20, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Tried to clean this up just now. Feb 25 2011

R

The entries for R and statnet should somehow be merged or one should point to the other, as they really are talking about the same thing (statnet is an R package that can in turn manage other SNA-related R packages). 156.80.77.129 (talk) 20:29, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I would prefer to keep R as the title. One can, after all, use packages such as sna independently of statnet.--Anthon.Eff (talk) 22:00, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

References

The reference section needs to be dealt with. Many of the items listed are not cited in the text or table. Some are relevant to specific tools (e.g., Nooy, Mrvar, & Batagelj) but are not cited, others are not tool specific (e.g., Newman) and are not cited. Huisman, and Van Duijn is actually cited in the text, and Freeman's JOSS article is linked to but not cited. Unless they are cited, most of the references should be removed. Any objections? 156.80.77.129 (talk) 20:40, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

No objections. We brought the references over wholesale from Social Networks; the redundant ones should be removed.--Anthon.Eff (talk) 22:00, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Cost?

There seems to be a small issue with the "Cost" column. "Open-source" means that one can access a program's source code. Although very very often open-source software is free (as in zero dollars), "open-source" does not actually imply anything in terms of cost and so the term "open-source" shouldn't appear under the "Cost" column. Perhaps it would be better to relabel the column "License"? Or to have two columns, "Cost" and "License"? 132.203.32.132 (talk) 21:08, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Change from UCINet to R?

What evidence is there documenting the wholesale changes in the article? I saw R, UCINet, Pajek and NodeXL used at recent Sunbelt conference. Bellagio99 (talk) 15:33, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Is Anyone Editing This Page

I feared from the start that it would become a garden of spam weeds. Hope I'm wrong. I watch, but only edit if I see an obvious problem. Bellagio99 (talk) 01:03, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

NPOV

5th paragraph "All of the tools above contain visualization capabilities, igraph, Cytoscape, NetworkX, and have the highest level of functionality in terms of producing high-quality graphics." I think this is biased wording. Can somebody figure out if this is a commonly-held view, and if so, attribute the opinion to some expert? 136.2.1.102 (talk) 19:20, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

==I'm not tagging as such at the moment, but this article can be merged with Social_network_analysis once that page has been split between 'theory' and 'analysis' (see the article's talk page Talk:Social_network.Meclee (talk) 05:17, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

SEO Concerns

NOTE: This wiki page does not discuss the true topic of social network analysis software. Instead, it is a listing of various software companies trying to use Wikipedia to place some backlinks for their own SEO purposes. It is embarrassing to the industry.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dgwood3131 (talk • contribs) 05:46, 19:46, December 17, 2015 (UTC)

There's another nice program

http://vis.stanford.edu/jheer/projects/vizster/ It would be nice if anyone could add it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by St.Wizard (talk • contribs) 16:45, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Major problems with this article

It appears that the users who started it are not keeping it up. Altho it has a tendency to be linkbait, it still is a useful repository. I am surprised, though, that the two most widely used software suites in social network research are not even listed: NodeXL (fairly easy to use, if you use WinXL); and the more fully featured UCINet. Bellagio99 (talk) 22:39, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

General Update to the “Collection of social network analysis tools and libraries” Section

Given the page has been stale for a while, I propose a general update to the “Collection of social network analysis tools and libraries” section (see the following changes below). These proposed changes would remove the software tools that are not dedicated social network analysis software, e.g. graph databases with some graph analysis and visualization features. Also, it would add several dedicated social network analysis software tools that are not on the list including a number of web-based tools that have increased in popularity over the last few years. Lastly, it would clean up the table a bit, moving R and Python libraries to the R and Python rows rather than having them duplicated like with igraph being listed on its own row and also under the list of R options.

• Remove igraph row and add its description to the igraph entry for R since it’s already in the list of R libraries.
• Add a row for Polinode since it’s a dedicated social network analysis software and has been adopted by the community.
• Add a row for Python similar to R. As with R, Python has several libraries for social network analysis.
• Remove Networkx row and add to the list of options in Python in order to maintain consistent formatting with the row for R.
• Add a row for UciNET since it’s a dedicated social network analysis software and has been adopted by the community.
• Add a row for Kumu since it’s a dedicated social network analysis software and has been adopted by the community.
• Add a row for Pajek since it’s a dedicated social network analysis software and has been adopted by the community.
• Add a row for Social Network Visualizer (SocNetV) since it’s a dedicated social network analysis software and has been adopted by the community.
• Add a row for Cytoscape since it’s a dedicated social network analysis software and has been adopted by the community.
• Add a row for SNAP (Stanford Network Analysis Platform) since it’s a dedicated social network analysis software and has been adopted by the community.
• Add a row for Sienna since it’s a dedicated social network analysis software and has been adopted by the community.
• Add a row for EgoWeb since it’s a dedicated social network analysis software and has been adopted by the community.
• Remove AlegroGraph row since it’s first and foremost a Graph database, i.e. not a dedicated social network analysis software.
• Remove Graph-tool row and add it to the Python list since Graph-tool is a Python module.
• Removed InfiniteGraph row since it’s a Graph database, i.e. not a dedicated social network analysis software.
• Remove the Mathematica row. Mathematica has graph analysis functionality but is not a dedicated social network analysis software.
• Remove the Wolfram Alpha row. Wolfram Alpha has graph analysis functionality but is not a dedicated social network analysis software.
• Remove Graphstream row because it has a relatively stale Github repository and doesn't have broad community adoption.
• Remove JUNG row since it doesn't have broad community adoption with the last release in 2016.
• Remove Network Canvas row because it’s focussed on the collection of ego network data rather than more general network analysis and visualization.
• Remove UNISoN row since it’s not a general tool, focussed on usenet groups.

Emanon17 (talk) 21:27, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

All entries on this list need to have demonstrated notability via a pre-existing Wikipedia article of their own. MrOllie (talk) 21:34, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback regarding the proposed update to the list. I truly appreciate your attention to detail and your commitment to maintaining the quality and notability of the content for this page.

I understand your concern that all entries should demonstrate notability through pre-existing Wikipedia articles. I'd like to acknowledge that, of the additions I'm proposing, some, such as Kumu, Pajek, Polinode, SNAP (Stanford Network Analysis Platform), Social Network Visualizer (SocNetV), and UciNET, currently lack their own Wikipedia pages.

I am committed to progressively addressing this matter by working through the process of adding Wikipedia pages for the new entries that lack proper notability references. I do think it's important that the current list is tidied up though as it's a mess and not overly helpful at the moment. Emanon17 (talk) 20:55, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

You seem to have forgotten that all entries on the list need pre-existing Wikipedia articles. I removed the erroneous additions for you. MrOllie (talk) 21:27, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

I'll progressively add pages for the tools that you removed that do not currently have pre-existing Wikipedia articles, and will then add those back to the table as I create the pages. Some of the tools that do not have pre-existing Wikipedia pages do have representation in academic publications and relevant conferences like INSA's Sunbelt Conference (https://www.insna.org/events/sunbelt-2023), and so I thought it would be valuable for the individuals seeking SNA tools to include them. Emanon17 (talk) 17:08, 23 August 2023 (UTC)