Talk:Community structure

Towards a more quality article

I am a student who has spent some time with community structure research lately and would like to take this opportunity to say a few words in the spirit of making this article considerably more valuable to the community of Wikipedia browsers and persons wanting to know more on this subfield of complex networks.

Though I did not initiate this article, I noticed its existence a while back, and feel it's time we talk about getting it to a much better state of existence. I appreciate whoever took the time to add the page as it is a valuable area of research that has grown in recent years. That said, I will soon begin a draft of a considerably revised page and post its meat in this section. I thought I'd post this initial discussion-starter for anyone who has placed this page on their watch list and would be interested in posting some thoughts as to how to proceed. Looking forward to it,

Geetduggal 03:03, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Needs a lot of work

This article is very out of date now (July 2011). There is insufficient mention of overlapping community detection, and too much attention is given to one particular method (modularity maximization) which is known to be somewhat problematic among the research community. I think I'd prefer a page that didn't try to enumerate all the methods, but which focussed on a general introduction to the field. Also, the claims about the prevalence of scale-free networks do not stand up, and are not relevant to this article. Any thoughts? Aaron McDaid (talk - contribs) 10:40, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Remove Surprise

The Surprise method was published in PLoS ONE and there have been many other methods for determining community structure that have been published in much more reputable journals, including Science, PNAS, Nature. These should have precedent over the PLoS ONE method. Was it added by the authors? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.243.19.20 (talk) 11:10, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

• I agree. This method is very new, and there is no indication it has gathered wide acceptance. There are hundreds of methods of community detection, only very few of which are widely adopted. I don't think 'surprise' should be mentioned here. executive_override (talk) 14:41, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

• • Actually, surprise-based algorithms have been in use since 2005. See new edit of the Surprise article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.111.219.29 (talk) 11:38, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

• • • The 'Surprise' edits are getting a bit silly. This sentence is exactly the sort of unconstrained bold claim that Wikipedia should stay clear of: "a recent article has shown in synthetic benchmarks that Surprise maximization is the best strategy currently available". I do not want this article to become a Usenet forum with a bunch of academics pissing on each others methods. Academic papers always overhype their methods, and Wikipedia should be more boring. Aaron McDaid (talk - contribs) 15:01, 4 March 2013 (UTC)