In my “defense,” I meant intriguing only about the idea as possibility. Instead of as in most algorithmic efforts I can actually understand this one. It also has a fair amount of useful sources in the reference list.

But, you are correct, ideas–and particularly implemented ideas–must be properly evaluated.

Another factor in my defense is that I am mostly just recording these here as a reminder for myself and as possibilities for others. I will rarely go into much depth on any of them. I guess I felt my use of “intriguing” kind of covered my bases.

I am sort of worried about the ones I have labeled “excellent” now, because Christina is correct in that I should be, in a sense, more objective in my reporting. But there’s a trade-off in comprehensiveness and expressivity of my efforts to say something or nothing at all.

So maybe I should say that if I say something like “intriguing” or “interesting” that I found the piece so for some reason, hopefully expressed even, but that I am not necessarily evaluating the piece as a whole.

If I use “excellent” or something similar–a more qualitative judgement–I will try to do a better job of objectively reporting on the piece as a whole and perhaps better situating it within the literature.

Christina, thanks for pointing out the limitations of this article, and for keeping me honest and on my toes.

P.S. I’m looking forward to tracking down the pieces you mentioned recently on the NGC4LIB list.