Talk:Analytic hierarchy process

similarity to weighted point count analysis

I actually do not see how substantially AHP differs from traditional weighted point count analysis, which is a lot simpler. Should this not be mentioned in the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.182.50.105 (talk) 10:37, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand your comment. Googling 'weighted point count analysis' doesn't give much help. It would be useful if you could be more explicit. --Lou Sander (talk) 17:08, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Archived 2009 material

I've created a new archive of all the material posted to this page during 2009. It can be accessed through the box at the top right of this page. --Lou Sander (talk) 16:47, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Removed general refs

To clarify my edit summary [1], it's not apparent that the references had been used beyond what has already been referenced with inline citations. --Ronz (talk) 19:42, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I've looked more closely, and they haven't been used to reference any new material, yet. Please just use inline references so we can ensure Wikipedia policies and guidelines are being followed. --Ronz (talk) 19:50, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

References and example

I'm putting a long-awaited improved example into this article. This will involve some major changes to the reference list and the way the references are presented. These changes will be made in steps over a few days. Please be patient -- there will be some intermediate steps that may not seem meaningful when they are made. --Lou Sander (talk) 19:51, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Good enough. Please indicate when it is ready for review. --Ronz (talk) 19:52, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Missing definition, justification, etc.

This morning I ran across a heavily technical article developing aspects of the Analytic Hierarchy Process, which I'd never heard of until today but which looked very interesting. Wanting to learn more, I looked it up on Wikipedia. But all I found here was how the process was used. There was not a word about what the process actually is, or why one might expect it to work, or anything relevant to it of any technical substance, or anything that made the slightest connection whatsoever to the article that prompted me to look up the subject on Wikipedia.

Figuring the archives would be full of complaints about this, I read them all. However no one seemed to care at all about what the process actually was. The section of the article headed "Hierarchies defined" sounded promising, but the closest thing to a hint of a definition was "Though the concept of hierarchy is easily grasped intuitively, it can also be described mathematically" with a pointer to an article by Saaty.

If the article on quantum mechanics were organized like this it would consist of ways to use Geiger counters, along with pointers to the articles by Heisenberg and Schroedinger together with the promise that "although the principle of radioactive decay can easily be grasped intuitively, it can also be described mathematically."

It's clear that everyone who's ever looked at this article either has no idea what AHP really is or hasn't bothered to complain that the article doesn't say what it is.

In the area of technical subjects I've seen some rubbish on Wikipedia, but this article beats them all. Someone who actually knows what AHP is needs to get in here and fix the article accordingly. Unfortunately I don't or I'd do it myself, all I've been able to discern so far from a quick scan through Saaty's work is that this article comes nowhere near doing it justice. --Vaughan Pratt (talk) 22:13, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

You are right. There is nothing here yet under a Theory section. The article was developed recently over the last couple of years with the idea that it should appeal to general Wikipedia readers and not be mathematical in nature. Wikipedia sometimes warns not to include too much "how to". As you note, there is a great deal of interesting material that could be included about the theory behind AHP, and lets just say it is forthcoming. In its defense the article is heavily referenced, with many of them available to be read at a click so perhaps they will serve in the meantime. Please be patient and check back on the article now and then. MathDame (talk) 19:30, 28 May 2011 (UTC)