I flagged this as ‘off-topic’ because I believe that low-effort wikipedia postings like this (without any context) that are wildly popular on the orange site don’t belong here.
I upvoted this because I appreciate being introduced to new concept. I don’t think a link to wikipedia is necessarily low-effort, and it’s a more lasting URL than most other sites.
I also upvoted your comment because I have seen enough of what you describe.
Not sure about the Wikipedia link, but the project page is certainly worth checking, in particular the demo page http://www.biofabric.org/gallery/pages/SuperQuickBioFabric.html. Graph data is really hard to make sense of, and this representation is both legible and insightful, and seems to scale quite well. It would be interesting to see how that would work for call graphs.
I flagged this as ‘off-topic’ because I believe that low-effort wikipedia postings like this (without any context) that are wildly popular on the orange site don’t belong here.
I upvoted this because I appreciate being introduced to new concept. I don’t think a link to wikipedia is necessarily low-effort, and it’s a more lasting URL than most other sites.
I also upvoted your comment because I have seen enough of what you describe.
Wikipedia can be more permanent, but an article like this that’s flagged for lack of notability is in risk of being removed.
As @11backslashes notes, linking to the project’s home page is more appropriate.
I concur, agree, and flagged as well.
Why is the wikipedia page linked when there is a fantastic project page?
http://www.biofabric.org/
https://github.com/wjrl/BioFabric/tree/V2.0Beta2
I guess the “suggest” page should allow proposing a different URL, not only a different name/tag.
That would also be useful for suggesting corrections to broken links.
Not sure about the Wikipedia link, but the project page is certainly worth checking, in particular the demo page http://www.biofabric.org/gallery/pages/SuperQuickBioFabric.html. Graph data is really hard to make sense of, and this representation is both legible and insightful, and seems to scale quite well. It would be interesting to see how that would work for call graphs.
This is impressive, but why not link the homepage or the demo? I was confused about how this graphical representation works until I actually saw it.
I had the exact same experience. The demo linked by @sebastien was jaw-dropping and would’ve made so much more sense as OP.
There sure are good graph visualization tools beyond graphviz. For example, Gephi is great for exploring large graphs.
Lol, you guys. I posted the Wikipedia link because I wasn’t thinking!
I forgive you. :-)
If you repost a better link,
I’d suggest using the. Graphs aren’t just for computers!mathtag rather thancompsciedit:
visualizationwould be even better. It’s exactly for this.