Talk:Shazam (econometrics software)/Archive 1

website

So the software was first released in 1977, yet the domain name www.shazam.com belongs to some music exchange company which launched in 2002. In the meanwhile the “official site” of this software tool is www.econometrics.com, which looks more like a spoofing attempt because the relation between this program and the science of econometrics is quite remote.

The econometricians don't use SHAZAM. They use R, Stata, TSP, SAS, Gauss, EViews, etc. At the very least the designation “one of the most widely used program” is fallacious. // stpasha » 17:58, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for commenting on my edits. As my first article, I stumbled around this a bit for which I apologise (should have used the sandbox). In reply to the above comments, I am told that shazam.com was not available when a higher level domain name than the one used at the time was purchased; but econometrics.com was available. SHAZAM has been used by econometricians around the world for more than 30 years since it was first launched in 1977 (please see 1977 article in Econometrica [1]) as well as the reference to an (incomplete) list of software reviews of shazam published in econometric journals here. I believe that research using SHAZAM has made important contributions to econometrics - please also see this (also incomplete) list of research in published academic journals citing SHAZAM. As stated on the SHAZAM website, SHAZAM is used in 89 countries from the Northernmost (University of Tromso, Norway) to the Southernmost (University of Otago, New Zealand) universities in the world and also in Antarctica. I think this qualifies as being one of the most 'widely used' in terms of location, however I certainly agree that while there are thousands of SHAZAM users around the world, some other programs will likely have greater numbers of users (econometricians) throughout the world. Wikieconometrician (talk) 11:15, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikieconometrician, I'm not really sure why geographic dispersion is relevant or verifiable for any software package, nor why it is any big deal. As for your other claims (that there are papers published using SHAZAM), I think the point is that SHAZAM is notable in the sense that it should have a Wikipedia article, but I'm not really sure why it bears mentioning. 0¹⁸ (talk) 20:59, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

O18, Microsoft Windows would probably not be a 'big deal' if only people in Redmond had ever wanted to buy it. The remainder was to refute the claims above that 'econometricians don't use SHAZAM', that the name/website is a 'spoofing attempt' and 'the relation between this program and the science of econometrics is quite remote'. Wikieconometrician (talk) 22:38, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

too many books

There is no reason for that many books. It should be maybe be one to three. I can pair it down, but I don't know what the best are. 0¹⁸ (talk) 18:52, 22 April 2010 (UTC)