Talk:Comparison of accounting software

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Comparison of accounting software article.
Article policies

Contents

[edit] Article Name, does it match the content of the article

Is this table supposed to be more informative than the List of accounting software? Currently I don't think that it is. Maybe there should be some sort of comparison, maybe by features? --Sleepyhead81 13:00, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

See Category:Lists of software and Category:Software comparison for some examples of other pages. The list page normally becomes "just a list" (prevents people trying to add all sorts of extraneous advertising, background information, descriptions, URLs, etc), and the comparison page normally tells you the URL, what platforms the software runs on, what it costs, who it's aimed at. who it's written by, etc.
Obviously this page isn't complete yet, but see that category for what it should/will look like. Ojw 14:51, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
Followup on that -- if people just fill in the features column with anything they think relevant, then we can see what sorts of things would warrant their own column/table. I'm not an accountant, so haven't proscribed anything yet. Also, the intention is probably to remove everything except name/URL from the list of accounting software, and remove the duplicates (e.g. GnuCash is there at least twice)
The list page seems to group by "intended audience" as well as by license, causing a lot of duplicates, whereas most other lists of software are only grouped by Free/freeware/proprietary. Ojw 21:56, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

What information is this article now giving. What are the comparison criteria. Does anyone care? I know there have been votes on comparison versus list. What did that achieve? --NilssonDenver 22:13, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] External link addition

I added a link to my Software Evaluation website because it offers assistance with the comparison of software and it is a free service that requires no registration or sign up. The matrix/spreadsheet concept used on the site can also be used by across all forms of software evaluation so it is a useful free resource that would be of interest to people using this page. Unfortunately someone chose to remove it. Perhaps it could be restored? [http://www.software-evaluation.co.uk]

It was me who removed the link. The general policy in the wikipedia is to have only few external links that provide significant additional value. Since there are quite a few comparison pages, after adding your page others would ask not without reason for the same. So unless you can show that your page is THE page for software comparison, I don't see why yours in particular should be added. --S.K. 18:11, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
Forgive me, but I seem to misunderstand this policy. The information I added a while back links to my company's page for the time being because we do not have a wikipedia article. My company's page has information about this product. I also guess I misunderstand why this is a policy. nQativ Nobody 20:34, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merge list of accounting software to comparison of accounting software

There was no consensus in the AfD:

  • 9 delete
  • 7 keep
  • 4 merge & redirect

The merge & redirect option appeared fairly late and changed 2 delete and 2 keep votes. The Comparison has a majority of programs in the List & is far more useful. More people seem to not want to keep the list in the current form than who want to keep it. A merge seems to have no downsides other than that of effort. --Karnesky 22:13, 13 February 2006 (UTC)


In favor of merging Sanjiv swarup (talk) 06:52, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cleanup needed

Many of the software packages in this article are not compared at all (their columns are blank). A majority of the articles lack information website, target consumer range, and whether or not the package is free; is this information really notable enough to be included in an encyclopedia, or is it just linkspam? —donhalcon╤ 19:56, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

This is on my list of comparisons to cleanup, but help is welcome. The reason for the incompletion in most instances was a recent merge from list of accounting software. I think the whole website column should be cut anyway. Agree that the other columns need to have info added. Judging that the list, which was less notable than this comparison, survived an AfD: Yes, the comparison is notable. --Karnesky 20:08, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Also, and more importantly, what is the encyclopedic context of this article? Is it a sub-page of accounting software? If so, it should have a {{main}} tag. —donhalcon╤ 20:01, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

None of the Category:Software comparison articles are really sub-pages. They have been treated as encyclopedic as stand-alone entities. However, this aricle could benefit from the inclusion of a short introductory paragraph. --Karnesky 20:08, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
What is the last encyclopedia you read that contained stand-alone tables? I've never seen such a beast, except as appendices — and an appendix is generally associated with a particular article or set of articles. A short introduction may be sufficient to provide context, however. —donhalcon╤ 20:14, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Firstly, Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. Secondly, many encyclopedias do contain "encyclopedic tables" (particularly summaries often found in almanacs, such as a table of countries with population and other demographic info). But let's see if an introductory paragraph will be good enough. --Karnesky 20:25, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
I could complete the sentence "Wikipedia is not paper..." in a number of amusing ways that highlight the absurdity I find in the whole paper/non-paper issue; I mean no ill will so I won't do that, but suffice it to say that availability of storage shouldn't correlate at all with quality of content. Anyway, the kinds of tables you're describing are exactly what I mean by content usually found in an appendix; if that's the sort of content this is intended to be then a short (but informative!) introduction will almost certainly suffice. —donhalcon╤ 20:35, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reformating of columns suggestion

Is the price of the product relevant? This may change overtime and if it is an international product which can be localised, local pricing will differ. What about rearranging headings to
Name, Level, Target Audience, Platform, Geographical markets, Notes
Name=Sage Line range
Level=Entry to Midmarket (Example Levels = Entry, Mid, High end)
Target Audience=General (example audiences: Doctors, Lawyers)
Platform=Windows (Example platforms: Linux, Mac, Unix, web based)
Geographical markets=UK and USA (Example geographical markets: Europe, Australia, Italy)
Notes=Opensource (Example notes: taken over by oracle in 2000, FRS compliant, Parent company is Microsoft)

Items such as double entry (why?), module types, other unique attributes to a product, will lead to never ending additions. It will be hard enough trying to keep up with the thousands of products out there and keeping their modules and other changes up to date. With a simple layout as indicated, it will be easier to read and keep updated. A clear process of what can and cannot be added to each column must also be clearly defined --NilssonDenver 21:07, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] dollibar

is dollibar also an acounting software? http://www.dolibarr.com/

[edit] Tiny ERP

Is Tiny ERP an accounting software?

Yes, it has dozens of accounting modules, many of them localized to the specifics of different countries.

[edit] Sources and advertising

A lot of this reads like advertising.

Simple and flexible personal accounting software without upgrade fees.

Not only is it unsourced, it reads exactly like advertising. As a minmum I suggest the addtional info parts are removed from the article. MartinDK 14:33, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] One row per product please

Lets have only one row per product. Peachtree has so many rows for all its different options. This is a clear case of commercial marketing. I suggest deleting all rows of Peachtree and replacing it with one single row. Dhshah 11:02, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Can you add in more companies? Sun Accounts for one

I'd like to see information about Sun Accounts added in. www.sunsystems.com


Also this is a good external link http://www.180systems.com/accounting-software.php

Can we reference it?

Jonaitken 20:50, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

What about LiquidLedger?

[edit] Recommendation to start over


Jhansonxi 22:48, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
It would be best to list general system features that differentiate between market segments. The comparison should be a rough guide to product lines so that researchers can identify common characteristics that they should be concentrating on when compiling a list of products that match their deployment scenario and merit further analysis.

I recommend that the following aspects of current offerings be listed:
Current product line names
Market focus (see reference link below)
Type - general accounting, ERP, specialty (automotive, construction, medical, etc.)
Platform - Linux, Windows, Mac, Java
Structure from a client perspective - standalone, client/server, WWW
Licensing - closed/open source, closed/open architecture (third-party modules), free/commercial, Software-As-A-Service (SAAS)

Reference:
From Accounting Software 411:
"Many accounting and business software systems perform several different tasks such as processing payroll, tracking fixed assets, and peforming general accounting functions such as Accounts Payable and Accounts Receivable. Despite this fact, most systems are usually defined by a single major function and classified as such. For Example, software systems designed for construction companies generally perform many functions such as payroll, general ledger, job costing etc. but they are classified as "Construction Software".

[edit] ransom-ware (no documentation)

Most of this "free" accounting software seems to be ransom-ware: The program is free, but the documentation most users would need to actually use it is not! There should be a column for the cost of the documentation. -69.87.199.226 20:21, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] database dependencies

Most of the open source accounting software seems to be very complex to install, requiring additional database software and computer language support. All such major dependencies, beyond the OS, should be noted in the table. -69.87.199.226 20:21, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re-write of the table

I have been thinking of re-writing this comparison table for some in line with the other comparison tables. I have tried to take on board the constructive comments on this talk page to make the new table. The idea of a comparison table is that people can take a quick glance of what the software does. As the old table was just text you could not just take a quick glance at it. Hopefully this new table is generally all round better. The old table can be viewed at: User:Benjaminevans82/old Comparison of accounting software. Feel free to add any helpful additional Columns. --Benjaminevans82 12:51, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Massively better, thanks! Chris Cunningham 13:23, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Disambiguate abbreviations

The three letter abbreviations in the Type column lead to disambiguation pages. I would fix it if I only knew what these abbreviations mean! But of course if I knew it wouldn't be so much of a problem for me to navigate to the correct page in the first place :). Please, if you know what they mean, link to the appropriate pages. I have now disambiguated ERP, CRM, POS and SME, but I remain unsure or clueless about the others.--Cyhawk 17:49, 28 September 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Openbravo

I recently added Openbravo ERP to the list, but has been taken out by another user. Openbravo is an open source ERP hosted in SourceForge.net with an accumulated 360,000 downloads. It has been one of the top 10 projects in SourceForge in terms of activity for the past months. Openbravo ERP has also been recently awarded an InfoWorld Bossie Award to the best open source ERP. As it is natural, the list in this page includes several ERPs (which are clearly accounting software). I believe this list would be more complete with Openbravo in it. The reason for deletion is that Openbravo doesn't have an entry in Wikipedia. I think the best solution is to include Openbravo in the Wikipedia (after all, smaller, less-relevant projects are included). Full disclosure: I am an Openbravo employee --jmitja 28 October 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.209.126.190 (talk) 12:37, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

The one removing Openbravo was probably me. The rule is, that this page should compare only "relevant" products. Therefore only entries with their own article are included, because otherwise it is not possible to judge this reliably. Therefore my suggestion would be to write the article, taking the notability criteria into account. --S.K. 12:23, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
S.K. Thanks for your reply. I agree the best solution would be to write an entry for Openbravo. To date Openbravo has been downloaded in SourceForge.net more than 350,000 times and for the past year has been a regular on the top 10 activity list there. On Google there are more 300,000 references to the project. Openbravo has also received several awards, including a LinuxWorld Product Excellence Award and an InfoWorld BOSSIE award to the best open source ERP. Does this meet the notability criteria for inclusion in the Wikipedia? Jmitja 23:48, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Jmitja, I would assume it does. Generally notability is defined as A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. So if you can establish this, you should be save. Check Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) for more details. When writing the article, try to stay as factual as possible, "advertising language" might get the article deleted as well. --S.K. 17:17, 8 November 2007 (UTC) PS: References worth checking out might be Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and Wikipedia:Autobiography.
Openbravo has finally been unsalted, and accepted as a legitimate entry in the wikipedia. See Openbravo. Therefore I propose to re-inclusion in the list. Full disclosure for the purpose of WP:NPOV: I am an Openbravo employee. Jmitja (talk) 19:39, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Sure, the article now looks okay, it seems reasonably factual and referenced. Currently I don't see any reason why I can't stay in Wikipedia. Therefore I don't see any hindrance to add Openbravo here as well. Greetings, --S.K. (talk) 09:50, 31 January 2008 (UTC) PS: While you're at it, could you look into the architecture section of the Openbravo article. The way it stands now, this isn't very good. In particular how the use of MVC is described: model-view-controller, in which data is not directly handled by the user but instead manipulated by the controllers.

[edit] Separate Table for GPL Software

Why is there a separate table for GPL software? GPL is one of the license types listed in the first table. Squideshi (talk) 20:09, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

There shouldn't be. It should either be generalised or deleted. Chris Cunningham (talk) 13:09, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Multiple Product Entries by the Same Company

To ensure the comparison list does not get too unwieldy, and stays more user friendly, I think the list should only include one entry per company - not one entry for each of the products that are produced. Agreed? Joebray (talk • contribs) 16:15, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ActionStep

I recently added ActionStep to the list but it was promptly removed. ActionStep is a mature online accounting package that has been used in production for over 2 years and is rapidly gaining popularity. Is there any reason it should be excluded from the list? Browtwo (talk) 19:11, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Thousands of accounting software applications exist. The page tries to compare notable products and therefore only accepts entries for applications that have Wikipedia articles as you can read when editing the page. So you should see if the program fulfills the above linked notability criteria, write an neutral article, not an advert. After this an entry here is welcome. --S.K. (talk) 14:27, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Agresso Business World, CODA and CCS are not included in this comparison?

How can we include the international Acccounting Software solutions from the Dutch stock listed company Unit 4 Agresso in this comparison. Agresso Business World, CODA and also CCS should be included for a correct comparison. --Hurby.sliepen (talk) 13:42, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion. When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the Edit this page link at the top. The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes — they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 17:59, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Compiere and Adempiere GPL licence

41.221.16.242 (talk) 12:43, 20 April 2008 (UTC)sorry but seems like your GPL data is resversed on these two in the articles about them we learn that Compiere is GPLv1 and Adompiere is GPLv2,am'I wrong?