<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: How Andrea Wendel Uses ChemSpider</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.chemspider.com/blog/how-andrea-wendel-uses-chemspider.html/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.chemspider.com/blog/how-andrea-wendel-uses-chemspider.html</link>
	<description>Building Community for Chemists</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 21 May 2013 16:16:29 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.5</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Antony Williams</title>
		<link>http://www.chemspider.com/blog/how-andrea-wendel-uses-chemspider.html/comment-page-1#comment-195138</link>
		<dc:creator>Antony Williams</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 22 Apr 2010 16:41:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.chemspider.com/blog/?p=1695#comment-195138</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Stefan Kuhn is working on the fix for some of the errors. He already has a beta version up with the fix but its not integrated into ChemSpider yet. For now we have disabled the integration. 

We have on our list to distinguish between a DB hit versus a prediction. We&#039;ll likely get it fixed before we switch it back on.

Thanks for the feedback as usual]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Stefan Kuhn is working on the fix for some of the errors. He already has a beta version up with the fix but its not integrated into ChemSpider yet. For now we have disabled the integration. </p>
<p>We have on our list to distinguish between a DB hit versus a prediction. We&#8217;ll likely get it fixed before we switch it back on.</p>
<p>Thanks for the feedback as usual</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Wolfgang Robien</title>
		<link>http://www.chemspider.com/blog/how-andrea-wendel-uses-chemspider.html/comment-page-1#comment-195137</link>
		<dc:creator>Wolfgang Robien</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 22 Apr 2010 14:02:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.chemspider.com/blog/?p=1695#comment-195137</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Dear Andrea:

I fully agree with your statements regarding common physical properties, etc. - the most important sentence in your feedback is &quot;The icon at the end of the information that leads you to the webpage it came from is another useful option, as the original source is very important to know.&quot; Yes, the original source is extremely important to know !

Lets do a few examples:

Do a carbon prediction for the following 3 structures:  #21934 ,  #26477 and #11249

http://www.chemspider.com/Chemical-Structure.21934.html  (2-methylundecane)
http://www.chemspider.com/Chemical-Structure.26477.html  (2,2-dimethyldecane)
http://www.chemspider.com/Chemical-Structure.11249.html  4-(2-phenylpropan-2-yl)phenol

1) All methylgroups in these 3 compounds will be predicted at 20.3 ppm
2) The methylgroup in an n-alkylchain, the methylgroups in (formally) an isopropyl group and the methylgroups in a (formally) tert.-butylgroup resonate always at 20.3ppm
3) The methylgroups in the bisphenol-A type compound resonates also at 20.3ppm

These unbelievable values have been calculated by NMRSHIFTDB as implemented into Chemspider on April 22nd, 2010 - this feature is now available for more than 1 month ! (Screendumps available on request from wolfgang.robien(at)univie.ac.at)

My questions:

1) Nobody out there in the community who 
   a) recognizes this nonsense    and
   b) gets up the nerve to clearly state that (except me) !
2) Is software provided by Stefan Kuhn and Christoph Steinbeck guaranteed to be untested ? 
3) Is &#039;open data, open source&#039; the legitimation to bother the community with definitely wrong predictions far away from reality ?
4) A few months ago proton prediction was online and vanished within a few days after bad feedback - why is NMRSHIFTDB  still online ?

Conclusion:

1) Grant-Paul increment rules from 1964 produce MUCH BETTER predictions than a software-package
written approx. 40 years later !
2) For e.g. undecane reasonable values are given, but in this case it&#039;s simply a visualization of the database values and NO prediction is done (BTW: Q: How to distinguish between simple visualization of a database-spectrum and a prediction based on NMRSHIFTDB ? A: When clicking the box &#039;NMRSHIFTDB&#039; and the spectrum appears after a few seconds then the identity is in the database and only the display must be done, when you can easily take a sip of coffee and do a phone call when waiting for the result, it&#039;s a prediction ;-)) )
3) Tony - Sorry !   I like Chemspider too as an excellent aggregation of data, according to my impression these predictions severly decline the confidence into all the other data presented on CHEMSPIDER !

Wolfgang]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Dear Andrea:</p>
<p>I fully agree with your statements regarding common physical properties, etc. &#8211; the most important sentence in your feedback is &#8220;The icon at the end of the information that leads you to the webpage it came from is another useful option, as the original source is very important to know.&#8221; Yes, the original source is extremely important to know !</p>
<p>Lets do a few examples:</p>
<p>Do a carbon prediction for the following 3 structures:  #21934 ,  #26477 and #11249</p>
<p><a href="http://www.chemspider.com/Chemical-Structure.21934.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.chemspider.com/Chemical-Structure.21934.html</a>  (2-methylundecane)<br />
<a href="http://www.chemspider.com/Chemical-Structure.26477.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.chemspider.com/Chemical-Structure.26477.html</a>  (2,2-dimethyldecane)<br />
<a href="http://www.chemspider.com/Chemical-Structure.11249.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.chemspider.com/Chemical-Structure.11249.html</a>  4-(2-phenylpropan-2-yl)phenol</p>
<p>1) All methylgroups in these 3 compounds will be predicted at 20.3 ppm<br />
2) The methylgroup in an n-alkylchain, the methylgroups in (formally) an isopropyl group and the methylgroups in a (formally) tert.-butylgroup resonate always at 20.3ppm<br />
3) The methylgroups in the bisphenol-A type compound resonates also at 20.3ppm</p>
<p>These unbelievable values have been calculated by NMRSHIFTDB as implemented into Chemspider on April 22nd, 2010 &#8211; this feature is now available for more than 1 month ! (Screendumps available on request from wolfgang.robien(at)univie.ac.at)</p>
<p>My questions:</p>
<p>1) Nobody out there in the community who<br />
   a) recognizes this nonsense    and<br />
   b) gets up the nerve to clearly state that (except me) !<br />
2) Is software provided by Stefan Kuhn and Christoph Steinbeck guaranteed to be untested ?<br />
3) Is &#8216;open data, open source&#8217; the legitimation to bother the community with definitely wrong predictions far away from reality ?<br />
4) A few months ago proton prediction was online and vanished within a few days after bad feedback &#8211; why is NMRSHIFTDB  still online ?</p>
<p>Conclusion:</p>
<p>1) Grant-Paul increment rules from 1964 produce MUCH BETTER predictions than a software-package<br />
written approx. 40 years later !<br />
2) For e.g. undecane reasonable values are given, but in this case it&#8217;s simply a visualization of the database values and NO prediction is done (BTW: Q: How to distinguish between simple visualization of a database-spectrum and a prediction based on NMRSHIFTDB ? A: When clicking the box &#8216;NMRSHIFTDB&#8217; and the spectrum appears after a few seconds then the identity is in the database and only the display must be done, when you can easily take a sip of coffee and do a phone call when waiting for the result, it&#8217;s a prediction <img src='http://www.chemspider.com/blog/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_wink.gif' alt=';-)' class='wp-smiley' /> ) )<br />
3) Tony &#8211; Sorry !   I like Chemspider too as an excellent aggregation of data, according to my impression these predictions severly decline the confidence into all the other data presented on CHEMSPIDER !</p>
<p>Wolfgang</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
