Talk:SMOG
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
External links
[edit]I've removed the following text and external link because it no longer works (webpage times out).
Might be worth adding something in about correctly identifying the number of syllables in words when calculating readability scores, but it is not an issue specific to SMOG.
Numerous online calculators give the SMOG level of submitted text or a URL but only the SMOG Calculator listed below as an external link uses a dictionary to look up the syllable length of words [citation needed]. Because of this, the SMOG Calculator counts syllables more accurately than any other readability program.
- SMOG Calculator counts multi-syllable words more accurately than any other readability program [citation needed].
Don't understand
[edit]I don't understand what this entry is trying to say. Is it just chicken scratch? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johndheathcote (talk • contribs) 23:47, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Copyvio
[edit]- Section copied from article history
The author and copyright holder of the document in question has been contacted as of 2008-JAN-08 by myself. - Agvulpine (talk) 02:16, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- Not wanting to deal with legalese of the GFDL and merge SMOG Index here, I've starting writing on the subpage. —Dispenser (talk) 01:44, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- I, G. Harry McLaughlin Neuroling am the author and copyright holder of the document in question which, like SMOG, has always been in the public domain. I have now added a GDFL notice to it because Agvulpine imagined that there was a copyright violation. Because of his further concerns I have provided information in SMOG Index showing that SMOG was published in a refereed journal, had outstandingly high correlation with its criterion, and has been widely used e.g. by the NIH. As I obviously do not fully understand the ways of Wikipedia I invite Dispenser to use my contributions as he sees fit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Neuroling (talk • contribs) 21:48, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Copyvio tag removed
[edit]I have looked at the source cited, and found that it now carries a GFDL license. Since this is enough for Wikipedia, I have reverted the copyvio notice. Thanks to everyone! --Alvestrand (talk) 15:14, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
- Do we need to included a boilerplate message for attribution? —Dispenser (talk) 21:34, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
- If the text comes from the page, it should be listed under "sources", not under "external links". that's the needed attribution. --Alvestrand (talk) 21:48, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Is SMOG defined?
[edit]The title SMOG (Simple Measure Of Gobbledygook) is an incoming redirect, that some articles link through.
But, the word "Gobbledygook" does not appear in the 1969 paper.
I would guess that the "SMOG" is a play on Gunning fog index, and that the other explanation is a backronym - though possibly it is an official one (given by original paper's author, or similar) ?
Can anyone find a Reliable source pointing either way? Ta. -- Quiddity (talk) 04:23, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
Notable software implementations?
[edit]Mentioning the name of at least one notable software implementation might be a good idea... 76.10.128.192 (talk) 13:42, 29 July 2015 (UTC)