Jump to content

Talk:Analytic hierarchy process

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

Example pages

This article currently links to two example pages, each described as "an appendix" in the article. These are at Talk:Analytic hierarchy process/Example Leader and Talk:Analytic hierarchy process/Example Car. Wikipedia articles do not normally have appendices. Moreover, these pages being in the talk namespace means that they have no talk pages of their own to discuss possible improvements.

It seems to me that these should be moved to the article space, perhaps at Analytic hierarchy process leader example and Analytic hierarchy process car example, linking back to Analytic hierarchy process via {{main}}.

Does anyone have any views on this? DES (talk) 15:17, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There has been some discussion of this (it's probably in the Archives now). As I recall it, somebody objected to the examples being in the article space, due to their "how-to" nature. They suggested putting them where they are today. Wherever they are, and whether they are called "appendixes" or something else, IMHO they (and other examples) are essential to understanding the AHP process.
Maybe they could be off-Wiki somewhere, but that would further discourage possible improvements. On the other hand, they are carefully-crafted examples, and as long as they are in Wikipedia, some well-meaning person could come in and inadvertently ruin them. I guess it's all a big tradeoff. Lou Sander (talk) 15:58, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Taking a closer look, the existing pages have very few wikilinks (making them easier to move off-Wiki), but have quite a few notes and references (making it maybe harder to move them). Lou Sander (talk) 16:01, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In the sense that it's of a "how-to" nature, actually would it be more suitable to be on Wikibooks? C933103 (talk) 01:59, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That discussion was in 2009, and can be found at Talk:Analytic hierarchy process/Archive 5#Moving the example. Four editors commented. No one discussed exactly where the split-off example would be moved to. I am going to move the pages into article space. In my view worked examples are not the same as "how to" pages and i don't think this will be a problem. Of course, you or anyone is free to copy the pages off-wiki, as long as you make proper attribution. I haven't worked much with Wikibooks, so I can't really say if that would be a suitable venue -- that could always be done at a later point if desired. DES (talk) 13:01, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, Lou Sander, I now notice that you were the one who started the above-linked discussion, and split off the examples to their curent location. DES (talk) 13:03, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have done the move, to Analytic hierarchy process — Car example, and Analytic hierarchy process — Leader example. The pages can be moved elsewhere if a consensus to do so is formed. DES (talk) 13:44, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
DESiegel Oh, yes. There were several of us working on the article at that point, some students of AHP and me. We often worked from the same location, and got accused of being sockpuppets. I don't remember who raised the "how-to" point.
Wherever the articles are is fine by me. I like the idea of people being able to make suggestions. If somebody clobbers the example, it can always be restored to its prior status.
I'm not an AHP practitioner or expert, outside what I've learned from working extensively on this article. I do know that within the academic community, there are cranky people with ideas of what MCDM method is best, and that the other methods aren't any good. They can, and do, go on and on about why AHP (or any other method) isn't any good. Mostly they are not experienced Wikipedia editors, so damage gets done.
One good thing that arose from all this is that the flaps about AHP led to huge expansion/improvement of the MCDM article. Lou Sander (talk) 13:59, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Picture

Why are there no women in the picture? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.225.94.197 (talk) 08:35, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you randomly pick 3 people, there'd be 1 in 4 chances that those people are all of the same gender...what's the problem with this 25% chance...C933103 (talk) 19:12, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why are there no trans-men? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FCC8:BC82:4700:C89:B42C:FE84:280F (talk) 00:47, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Who says there are no trans-men? Lou Sander (talk) 01:55, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How about this, why is everyone white?

Three white men? Seriously?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.115.13.130 (talk) 08:28, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

They're not. Harry is a woman.

Problems

There are definitely serious problems related to AHP related to the scale (a smaller scale has better mathematical properties), eigenvalues solution (not as good as geometric means), validation (no methodology of validating the results), and unsound definition of the eigenvalue-based inconsistency. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eto5166 (talk • contribs) 02:19, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention the non-monotony of the eigenvector method. A better judgement in the comparison matrix can be more beneficial for a competitor then for the own priority. The geometric mean is a better method, but less powerful, when the comparison matrix is incomplete. The Geometric Mean method will not take into account the strength/weakness of the missing entries in the comparison matrix. Clpippel (talk) 13:16, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Criticisms section

Over the last few years there have been negative comments about inadequacies of the Criticisms section, e.g. see Talk:Analytic_hierarchy_process/Archive_6#Article_reads_like_a_labor_of_love and immediately above. Editors of this article might find the overview of AHP’s weaknesses from this authoritative source useful: Valerie Belton and Theodor Stewart, Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis: An Integrated Approach, Springer, 2002. See pages 157-59 for a short survey of the main criticisms of AHP, under these four headings: The interpretation of criteria weights; The assumption of a ratio scale of preference; Numerical interpretation of the semantic scale; and The eigenvector method of estimation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulwizard (talk • contribs) 00:35, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Recent large deletion

An editor has removed about 6,000 bytes of well-sourced material without discussing it here. I have reverted the removal in anticipation of some discussion and consensus-building. Lou Sander (talk) 20:21, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has deleted this again. Please discuss the matter here and achieve consensus. Lou Sander (talk) 20:22, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Analytic hierarchy process. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:47, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Analytic hierarchy process. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:55, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Analytic hierarchy process. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:24, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Analytic hierarchy process. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:25, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Standard weights

I suggest the AHP fundamental scale for weights (as in the separate example pages) be included in the article, without which it's quite hard to understand the process. Ben Finn (talk) 11:44, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

AHP-EM

In some cases, AHP weights are corrected with the Entropy Method weights. The evaluation method is called (AHP-EM). A full description of the related formulas is provided by the paper Integrated Sustainability Assessment of Public Rental Housing Community Based on a Hybrid Method of AHP-Entropy Weight and Cloud Model (doi:10.3390/su9040603). It provides an example about the calculation of consistency index and consistency ratio of the AHP judgement matrix to evaluate the applicability of the results.

Another example is given by the paper Research on comprehensive evaluation of low carbon economy development level based on AHP-Entropy method: A case study of Dalian (doi:10.1016/j.egypro.2016.12.079, CC licensed). Regards, Theologian82sp

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Analytic_hierarchy_process&oldid=1260358514"