Talk:Sørensen similarity index

The 2
Hi folks,

I don't agree with your formula and deleted the "2" on top!!

Greetings from Germany (where the "Sørensen similarity index" hopefully isn't different from yours) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.83.155.191 (talk • contribs)

Hello everyone

I brought back the "2" in the upper term as this is absolutely correct. (e.g. Anne E. Magurran, Measuring Biological Diversity, p. 173) Greetings from Germany, too.

201.25.251.153 (talk) 18:07, 5 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Something is wrong - currently, with the 2, it is exactly the same as Dice's coeff. I suggested the 2 is in fact dice's coefficient which people confuse with Sørensen similarity index dues to dice's coefficient making more sense.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.150.10.200 (talk) 21:45, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Proposed Merge
This is identical to Dice's coefficient. I think the two articles should be merged, but I don't know what would be the best name for the merged article. The formula is sometimes called the Sørensen-Dice coefficent. Maghnus (talk) 19:51, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Agreed on the merge -- the present situation is just confusing. I'd call the combined page Sørensen-Dice coefficent and have all necessary redirects -- i.e. "Sørensen similarity index", "Dice coefficient", maybe "Sørensen distance" as I have also seen this.

Also the link to an (unwritten) article "Czekanowski similarity index" at the bottom -- it's just not different enough, is it? I think it should be included in this article. Octopod (talk) 19:14, 26 March 2012 (UTC)Octopod


 * I believe this was a misleading merge, as the two coefficients differ by a factor of 2, and it serves to confuse terminology. Comparisons of these coefficients across research requires one to know whether the factor of 2 is present or not. Cross linking the two articles would've been preferable.
 * At the very least, the merged article should have been called the Dice-Sørensen coefficient, since Dice is both first alphabetically and published it 3 years earlier. Unfortunately, this merge seems to have single-handedly seeded the new incorrect terminology on the internet. Qjkx (talk) 13:44, 11 May 2024 (UTC)